I’ve been watching the ‘Blue Force‘ blog for a while, figuring “hey, maybe theres an ally here.”
I’m not thrilled so far, because the emphasis seems to be less on how to develop a genuine Democratic set of policies around the conflict we’re in (the one that’s broader than the war in Iraq), than in figuring out ‘framing’ exercises for Democratic candidates that inoculate them against the issue – i.e. the Iraq and Afghanistan vets running for office as Democrats.
John Kerry was a genuine soldier – whether you think he was a hero or not, he certainly served credibly – and his handlers made the same mistake, thinking that a service record alone would wrap a Democratic lack of coherent policy in a uniform and make it look strong.
That’s kind of like putting a big spoiler on an economy car and thinking that makes it a race car.What’s needed is an independent effort by Democrats to think through and create a set of policies to address the challenges we’re facing today. These policies need to go past the Jimmy Carter apologetics, to some understanding of how we address the simple fact that people in the world are perfectly prepared to use force and violence against us.
What’s also needed – both from a policy perspective, and a politics one – is to make it clear that these policies are being identified and proposed not for partisan advantage, but because we think they are the best policies to follow.
Which is why I was so deeply disappointed today to see this post:
Unnecessary Worrying About Iran’s Nukes
Submitted by Jason Sigger on Mon, 02/06/2006 – 3:50am.One might understand the right wing’s concern about Iran’s nuclear weapons and the Bush administration’s rhetoric about not being able to accept a nuclear-armed Iran, but the question has to be asked. Why are the left-wing bloggers at Washington Monthly and Daily Kos echoing the administration’s lines?
Boy, this is wrong on just so many levels.
On a basic one, let me propose this: if the core of Democratic foreign policy and military policy is to be devised to oppose Bush, and make him look bad – as opposed to opposing our enemies and making them look bad – the right-wing point that the progressives see Bush as a bigger enemy than Bin laden is just proved again. By the same people who have taken on themselves the nominal responsibility of creating a national-security policy for the Democratic Party.
I’m working on a longer post about just such a policy, but somehow I don’t think I’ll be quite as interested in what these guys have to say about it. I know commenter Chris won’t be happy about that…
While you’re ruminating on the future post, AL, you might take this into account: no credible foreign policy for the United States can completely rule out the use of force to achieve foreign policy goals. That position already divides the Democratic Party which has at least two substantial fractions who completely reject that notion. One of the fractions are pacifists full stop. The other fraction will only support the use of American military force for humanitarian goals.
We know that those views constitute important constituencies in the Democratic Party because that’s what the polls taken of attendees to the Democratic National Convention in 2004 said.
This is the fundamental conundrum for the party. I have no idea whatever on how the point can be resolved.
Certainly a longer post would be welcome, but your second to the last paragraph is just about all that is necessary.
Dave Schuler hit the nail on the head. How can you get past the fact that a large percentage of the party (or at least those whose vote leans Democratic) reject the use of force under any circumstances and a large percentage of what remains rejects the use of force under most circumstances? I just don’t see it.
bq. I know commenter Chris won’t be happy about that…
Straw man. I’ve never even heard of these guys – the fact that you found a post you didn’t like on their blog doesn’t mean much of anything to me.
And, for what it’s worth, I’ve never tried to “convert” you back over to the Democratic side of things – anybody who switched sides to support Bush, and continues to affirmatively support him as much as you do, is pretty much a lost cause for switching back in my book. The points I’ve tried to make are more about your identity and tactics, and they continue to stand.
bq. On a basic one, let me propose this: if the core of Democratic foreign policy and military policy is to be devised to oppose Bush, and make him look bad – as opposed to opposing our enemies and making them look bad – the right-wing point that the progressives see Bush as a bigger enemy than Bin laden is just proved again.
There’s a lot of confused logic here – one anecdote on an obscure blog aside, Democratic foreign policy is not devised to oppose Bush. Rather, Bush is doing stuff that’s opposed to rational security policies and many of the long-standing traditions of the US.
More importantly, progressives don’t “see Bush as a bigger enemy than bin Laden.” That’s just asinine, and the fact that you’re repeating it simply drives home what I’ve been saying about how you’re never gonna be able to reach out to liberals. “Progressives” do most of their complaining about Bush for two simple reasons:
1) Bush is a creature of the United States policial system, and as such can be dealt with (to some extent) by verbal and written criticism, protests, etc. Bin Laden, being a sociopathic nutjob hiding in the mountains, cannot really be dealt with in the same way.
2) Getting somebody competent to deal with Bin Laden in office (i.e. not Bush… even McCain would be ok) means getting Bush and the people who support him out of office.
And while I’m at it, let me address the point you make (echoed above by Dave) that Democrats are somehow reluctant to use force against our enemies. This is nonsense: the near-unanimous support Democratic lawmakers gave to the Afghan war completely belies this claim.
Yes, it is true that there are some Democrats who are total pacifists of one stripe or another. It’s also true that there are some Republicans who’d be more than happy to nuke Mecca and Medina tomorrow and consider the whole Middle Eastern problem solved. Heck, some of the more over-the-top calls for an Iranian invasion on this very blog are at least as alarming as any “no blood for oil” screed.
Let’s not pretend that there aren’t alarming and disagreeable policies on both sides. We can’t move forward unless there’s some willingness to admit that cooler heads in both parties can be trusted to restrain the extremists… otherwise you come to the conclusion (as many on this board have) that the other side’s just completely irredeemable. And at that level, politics just consists of letting one side run things until they screw up so spectacularly that the other side gets to take over.
Chris,. it was meant as a wry comment, not a personal challenge…
I’ll go look, but there was a rightie blog that did a survey and got a significant slug of responses from self-professed progressives who felt that GWM was a bigger threat to the US then ObL; that’s also a comment I’ve heard more than once or twice from my progressive friends.
Well, my identity is as me; the question is who will get my vote, and the votes of folks like me (we can debate whether we’re a small or a large bloc).
A.L.
Chris said everything that I intended to say, I think. Maybe I should have articulated more about the specific issue of Iran and its nuclear energy program (because that’s all it is right now). What many of us who have served in the military as well as those of us who are committed to national security issues see is a “Groundhog’s Day” approach to Iran by this administration, and frankly that’s very troubling. To start raising the defcon and discussing the viability of military options against Iran while pushing the UN to back the US position of “the threat Iran poses” just seems really too familiar.
The fact is, as the original article notes, Iran isn’t going to have a nuclear weapons capability for years, probably after Bush is out of office. That leaves lots of time for economic and diplomatic sanctions and negotiations, maybe with a tone other than “you be an axis of Evil member” in the message. I don’t believe that the Iranian govt is an irrational actor. They’re playing us and the Europeans on emotions and oil greed, and they’re laughing at their success. For anyone on the left or right to suggest that what Iran is doing now is “unacceptable” and a threat to the US interests today is unsupportable. Even if/when Iran gets a nuke, there are options. We lived with the threat of Soviet nukes, we lived with Israeli, Pakistani, and Indian nukes, we can make due with this today.
re: Blue Force, I think we might have a lot more in common with your site that you suspect. Yes, this blog is dedicated to supporting the election of Democratic candidates that support a strong national security position. And they need support in developing and articulating campaign positions, certainly nothing that the repubs don’t also do – it’s just that the Repubs are more organized and have several think tanks helping them out. We on the left side of the national security debate want a strong military that isn’t ground down by lack of personnel, lack of material, and lack of a counterinsurgency strategy. We’re tired of being beaten up by the right wing sound machine, who’s had a great record in attacking Vietnam and Gulf War vets so far.
If you’re interested in discussing national security pros and cons, please by all means come over and discuss. You and I do both want the same thing (a strong and effective military), it’s just our lack of confidence that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and congressmen like Duncan “no women in combat” Hunter that forces us to look for the Dem national security solution.
We can’t move forward unless there’s some willingness to admit that cooler heads in both parties can be trusted to restrain the extremists…
Well, just for fun, can you name any “cooler heads” on the Democratic leadership’s side who are capable of restraining their pacifist extremists? We’ve got Reid leading the Senate caucus, Pelosi leading the House caucus, and Howard Dean as chairman of the entire party. Which of these is the voice of moderation?
This is not to say that cooler heads don’t exist at all on the left side of the aisle. I’d argue they exist, but they have little or no power when it comes to the party platform. I can think of exactly three Democrats I would trust with our country’s national security, and only one of them (Lieberman) even holds public office–and we all know how he gets pushed aside within his own party.
AL-
it’s kind of funny that you chose the subject of Iran to claim that the aim of Blue Force “seems to be less on how to develop a genuine Democratic set of policies around the conflict we’re in (the one that’s broader than the war in Iraq), than in figuring out ‘framing’ exercises for Democratic candidates that inoculate them against the issue – i.e. the Iraq and Afghanistan vets running for office as Democrats.”
I suggest you take a look at the policy papers that we are crafting in regards to Iran:
http://blueforceblog.com/node/71
http://blueforceblog.com/node/45
And if there is some part of these policy positions that you disagree with, than you are more than welcome to suggest changes, since we created Blue Force to facilitate just such a debate. But to claim that this is just a “framing exercise” is a bit insulting to the folks on our blog who are trying to come up with a Democratic position on this issue, or really any issue that we’re working on…
J and Alex –
Thanks for Trackbacking over (seriously); I tend to be blunt-spoken, so please don’t be put off by that. I also want to see a serious effort made by progressives to craft a national security policy – it’s been a pretty consistent theme of mine for a while. It’s good to see people stepping toward that.
I will make it a point to come over and test the water, and as I get some pieces up on the subject, I’ll see if I can trigger some discussion with you & your folks.
For now, I’ll point you to “my post on Iran”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007988.php …I suggest that it is a serious issue, but not one that requires or supports any kind of hasty action.
A.L.
bq. Well, just for fun, can you name any “cooler heads” on the Democratic leadership’s side who are capable of restraining their pacifist extremists? We’ve got Reid leading the Senate caucus, Pelosi leading the House caucus, and Howard Dean as chairman of the entire party. Which of these is the voice of moderation?
I’m wary of engaging in stuff like this, because it very quickly devolves into “well, as such-and-such event, (s)he said so-and-so, which can obviously be taken to mean that (s)he’s on the terrorist payroll…”
But for the sake of argument, I’ll point out that Reid & Pelosi both voted for the initial Iraq resolution, and that Dean supported the Afghanistan war, although not Iraq. I don’t agree with everything they say, but those positions seem fairly reasonable to me. When you can find Democratic leadership that was against the war in Afghanistan, then we can talk about the lack of “cooler heads”.
Seriously Al, this is just too much.
“I’ll go look, but there was a rightie blog that did a survey and got a significant slug of responses from self-professed progressives who felt that GWM was a bigger threat to the US then ObL;”
First you start with a premise, in this case that a significant proportion of the left feels that GWB is a bigger threat than OBL.
Then you head off in search of something, anything to support the premise,and end up with some right side blog “poll”.
This is the exact same thought process that has gotten us into so much trouble with our foreign policy of late wouldn’t you say?
Deciding a fact is true and then seeking out support while ignoring evidence that disproves it?
Basically, if you truly believe that large numbers of progressives feel this way then I’d say Chris is right.
And I’d add that it isn’t very hard to find evidence in the blogosphere that conservatives believe the War on Terror is the most important military campaign in US history. And that just makes you say “Huh?”.
“What many of us who have served in the military as well as those of us who are committed to national security issues see is a “Groundhog’s Day” approach to Iran by this administration, and frankly that’s very troubling. To start raising the defcon and discussing the viability of military options against Iran while pushing the UN to back the US position of “the threat Iran poses” just seems really too familiar.”
Have I missed something… didn’t Bush turn this over to France/Germany/Great Britain to ‘negotiate’ with Iran on this issue???? Why, yes he did – but apparently it’s not working. This isn’t a ‘Groundhog’s Day’ approach, it is the approach that the Democrats said should have happened with Iraq??? It is France/Germany/Great Britain that have declared the talks dead and want to call for an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, to send the issue to the Security Council.
“The fact is, as the original article notes, Iran isn’t going to have a nuclear weapons capability for years, probably after Bush is out of office.”
Yeah, because we all know that ‘intelligence has never been wrong before’… right???
“I don’t believe that the Iranian govt is an irrational actor.”
Considering that he has declared the Jewish Holocaust a ‘myth’, and he has stated “that Israel “must be wiped out from the map of the world.” – this kind of makes me wonder about how grounded in reality you are… If this isn’t ‘irratiionality’ what is???? Sitting back and allowing them to aquire Nuclear capabilities???
“it’s just that the Repubs are more organized and have several think tanks helping them out. We on the left side of the national security debate want a strong military that isn’t ground down by lack of personnel, lack of material, and lack of a counterinsurgency strategy. We’re tired of being beaten up by the right wing sound machine, who’s had a great record in attacking Vietnam and Gulf War vets so far.”
And yet, Defense spending is the VERY first thing that Dems cut everytime… Just because you don’t agree with the ‘counterinsurgency’ strategy doesn’t mean that they don’t have one… it’s like any other strategy that is developed – somebody won’t agree with it but you have to choose one to go with. It’s always easier to spot mistakes after something has occurred and you have hindsight to back you up… and yet you seem to want to be patted on the back for ‘critiquing’ what the pentegon had to choose before events happened…
Which Vets are being attacked??? The ones that came back and joined the ‘enemies’ propaganda campaign’ causing more injuries and deaths to our own soilders?? Why yes, those are the ones… hhmm, if you want to interject youself into the political arena taking the position against our own troops then don’t be surprised when people use their ‘constitutuional right to lambaste’ you for it. Just as you have the ‘right’ to protest our government or anybody else, those opposed to you also have the same right.
“it’s just our lack of confidence that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and congressmen like Duncan “no women in combat” Hunter that forces us to look for the Dem national security solution.”
I’m interested in hearing it too, but nobody seems to be able to give it – Kerry had the chance during the debates and the only difference was ‘he claimed he could do it better’…. forgive me if that doesn’t get me excited, especially when he spent so much time claiming the ‘wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place’, and his consistant historical stance that he doesn’t believe that our troops should ever be used unless it is at the direction of the UN… Couple that with the rampant corruption of the UN and is it any wonder that the Dems lost the election??? Not to mention, the UN doesn’t have any kind of track record for solving any conflicts…. just for allowing them to drag on forever.
Deb, you are confusing the Iranian government with Ahmadinejad and they are not one in the same. That said, he certainly knows how to rattle our chain.
As to the validity of our intelligence, if you don’t trust them, why are you concerned at all that Iran may one day obtain nuclear weapons? Let’s remember that our recent experiences point to our intelligence agencies vastly overestimating a threat rather than underestimating it.
As for Kerry “and his consistant historical stance that he doesn’t believe that our troops should ever be used unless it is at the direction of the UN”
There are to war resolutions giving the US unilateral authority to wage war without UN consent and unless I’m mistaken Kerry voted yes on both. So what evidence of this alleged “stance” are you referring to?
What Chris missed in my comment above was that Democratic Party activists as a group are more pacifistic and less inclined to use force in the furtherance of U. S. foreign policy than Democratic Senators taken as a group. Or, in other words, the authorization to use force doesn’t have much relevance in characterizing the Democratic Party foreign policy.
This stands to reason. The Senators want to get elected after all and even in very blue states they typically need some moderate votes.
bq. What Chris missed in my comment above was that Democratic Party activists as a group are more pacifistic and less inclined to use force in the furtherance of U. S. foreign policy than Democratic Senators taken as a group. Or, in other words, the authorization to use force doesn’t have much relevance in characterizing the Democratic Party foreign policy.
bq. This stands to reason. The Senators want to get elected after all and even in very blue states they typically need some moderate votes.
So, Dave, by your own admission, the part of the Democratic party that _actually makes laws and sets national policy_ *is* moderate.
And this concerns you… why?
And you’re under the impression that Republican Party activists aren’t equally radical in the opposite direction because…?
Except that Reid and Pelosi are both pretty stridently anti-OIF now (and Howard Dean seems to be anti-everything now). Remember that these votes were taken when Bush had astronomically high approval ratings, somewhere above 80-90%; even the most obstructionist of political minorities cannot ignore such numbers. But given the Dems’ subsequent 180 turnaround, I think it’s safe to lay these votes as charges of political expediency at the sake of “true” party principles.
And indeed, many in the DKos/Atrios/MoveOn/DU vein have repeatedly accused their party leaders of betraying their principles because of those votes, and these activists seem to be getting results for their clamor. Which brings us back to the original question: which Democratic leader is capable of controlling the party’s pacifist factions, given an apparent willingness to reverse positions wherever the political winds blow?
I don’t enjoy re-treading the usual charges of poll reading and wishy-washiness, we already had plenty of that during the 2004 elections. But I’d argue that during those key votes the pacifists were kept in line by President Bush, not by their party leaders. If Bush was off the scene–and unfortunately he will be in 3 years–what Democratic leader would keep the extreme pacifists from gaining more influence than they already have?
I believe the characterizations in #1 and #3 are incorrect. These people do not reject the use of force under any circumstances. Indeed, many of them are quite understanding and even supportive when force is used against the US or its allies.
This is far more often the case among activists than voters, but as politics enters a phase in which the Democratic Party is largely defined by its “search for an ideology,”:http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110007912 that group matters more not less.
With the collapse of both socialism and the New Deal Coalition as viable vehicles, Humpty-Dumpty is broken and cannot be put back together again. The Democratic party, like the global left generally, is searching for a replacement. Like any company searching for a market, the first attempts are not always the ones that stick. But they certainly could be – and when those attempts concern a political party’s “core beliefs operating system,” the dangers of being trapped by DOS for a very long time are very real.
The “cure,” such as it is, thus depends on one of three things:
[1] Find/ invent an ideology that provides a more satisfactory replacement. This is a must. If it happens early or is not antithecal to existing beliefs held by party activists and members, it may simply compete and win, and people will fall into line over time. “Neo-Conservatism” became powerful on the right this way. It was helped by a very long slide of…
[2] Suffer political shocks and defeats so great and so consistent that a British Labour Party style purge/ recovery takes place. Downside: the cockroaches are still mostly there – George Galloway was a Labour MP until quite recently. The money and power holders shift, and the party goes along, and it draws in people who used to be outside its spectrum, but few minds change and if the problem group is large enough, this won’t really fix the problem.
The Democrats’ utter inability to be either honest or coherent on national security is the result of just this sort of dynamic. That problem would continue on a slightly reduced basis even if the money and party levers were to shift back to saner heads.
Likewise, on the right, it took a while for the John Birch and then the Pat Buchanan types to be firmly gone – and no small amount of confrontation was required to achieve it.
[3] Suffer a shock or set of shocks so great that minds change on a personal level. 9/11 did this for some liberals and leftists, and these “security democrats” aren’t going back. Downside: requires massive tragedy and failure.
Even this is unlikely to shift the leftists for whom hating America can be safely described as their religion, but the remainder are eligible. Though the farther they are down the scale toward extremism, the more violent the shocks must be before all rationalizations are exhausted. This is inherent in all political belief – and while you couldn’t find anyone in Germany who had been a Nazi by 1948, getting there wasn’t exactly easy.
Actually Chris the “heart and soul” of the Democratic Party opposed the Afghan War now and then. Joe Biden (who famously called our bombing of Afghanistan a war crime for which we would answer), Babs Boxer, Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, Moveon (who staged protests against ANY retaliation two days after 9/11 in the smoke and dust of the towers in Manhattan) all opposed the Afghan War then and now. FEINSTEIN and Pelosi now believe the Afghan War to be a mistake and call for an immediate pullout, as does Murtha. I won’t even get into Cindy Sheehan who calls the Afghan War an atrocity, and along with other Dems has pushed for a “negotiated settlement with bin Laden.”
Joe Biden had an infamous meeting with campaign supporters where he floated a trial balloon of invading Pakistan and taking casualties in the hundreds, war with Pakistan, to get bin Laden. To a man his supporters said they opposed such action.
Want Bush to marginalized and Dems elected? Run on the platform of getting bin Laden (which means war with Pakistan), destroying Iran’s nuclear program (and Pakistan’s too). Offer the American public a clear choice, a short, intense war to secure our freedoms and liberties, at a time when Muslims around the world are waging total cultural war against us, or Bush’s half-coherent policies of sort of fighting, maybe. The old FDR policy of total mobilization followed by total victory followed by going home (and leaving Iran, Pakistan in ruins as an object lesson not to be the enemy of the US) would shatter the Republican Party and put Dems in a 1964 ascendency.
However since 1968 Dems have refused to countenance force in almost any circumstance other than a bloodless air war, so the likelihood of this happening is zero. They are also caught up in “Volk Marxism” and identity politics, note not a single Democrat has held Bush’s feet to the fire for the gutless lack of defense of Denmark our ally or freedom of speech as dark ages savages threaten to behead cartoonists. Dems don’t even have the courage to take on the Muslim mob over cartoons not to mention defend our nation. So yeah naturally they look for a uniform to duck the issue or hide behind.
I find J’s nonchalance about Iran frighteningly naive and foolish. When a man says repeatedly he wants to nuke your nation (along with Israel), has said he can accept destruction of his nation to destroy yours, and is well on the way to nuclear weapons from AQ Khan’s nuke bazaar, to deny the danger is like ignoring your pants on fire. It’s akin to Atrios aka Duncan Black saying he’ll wait until Iran nukes our cities then destroy the nation. By that time millions of our people are dead and eventually tens of millions of theirs. Since these are the stakes it’s better to act instead of moral preening about being the “good guy.” I believe Iran already HAS some nukes, hence the rhetoric.
Davebo — CIA and other intel agencies missed Saddam nearly having nukes and the extent of his program post Gulf War. So they over-estimated afterwards. In reaction they are underestimating Iran which has spent almost thirty years getting nukes. CIA has zero assets inside Iran so anyone’s guess is literally as good as theirs.
Dems will look like the German American Bund and Lindbergh on Dec 12th, 1941 (after Hitler’s declaration of war in support of Japan) after Iran attacks us. There is not a single Democrat who could support the unilateral invasion of Iran to forestall a nuclear attack on the US. That’s pathetic. You’ll probably get Senator Sheehan replacing Feinstein. The Dem party IS Moveon.
Bottom line Americans don’t want their cities nuked and Dems are willing to allow that in order to maintain their moral vanity. Doubtless Moveon will march demanding “Our grief is not a cry for war.”
Chris, here’s a question – how do you feel about the netroot’s efforts to run a candidate against Joe Lieberman?
I’m not historically a fan of Lieberman, primarily because he’s a corporate shill – but the core justification given by MDD and others is that he needs to be pubished for supporting ‘Bush’s war’…
A.L.
It doesn’t, Chris: I’m a Democrat. But I’m a Scoop Jackson Democrat. What bothers me are the activists in the party pushing the party closer and closer towards unelectability.
Whoot! Dogpile!
That being the case, some quick responses:
Unbeliever-
bq. But given the Dems’ subsequent 180 turnaround, I think it’s safe to lay these votes as charges of political expediency at the sake of “true” party principles.
Cute. No mention at all of how Bush has handled the war in Iraq, how intelligence about what was really going on in Iraq and in the White House prior to the war might have effected their stances… it’s all craven political opportunism by the Democrats.
Look, your theories are pretty much totally unsubstantiated. You’re more than welcome to believe whatever you want, but you’ve made it absolutely clear that you are the kind of person I described above who believes the Democrats are irredeemable. As such, I’ll add you as a data point to discuss with AL down below…
Joe-
bq. These people do not reject the use of force under any circumstances. Indeed, many of them are quite understanding and even supportive when force is used against the US or its allies.
Yep, this is fairly repulsive, so I think I’ll just skip over it entirely and add it to the pile…
(Although, incidentally, lovely use of the oh-so-vague “these people”. To many on the rabid right, it refers to a large, malignant mass within – maybe even the solid majority of – the Democratic party. But when challenged, it will inevitably become a much smaller number of radicals whose influence is, of course, still enormously widespread, albeit unrealized and unfelt by most of us actual Democrat types. Awesome!)
Jim-
bq. Actually Chris the “heart and soul” of the Democratic Party opposed the Afghan War now and then. Joe Biden (who famously called our bombing of Afghanistan a war crime for which we would answer), Babs Boxer, Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, Moveon (who staged protests against ANY retaliation two days after 9/11 in the smoke and dust of the towers in Manhattan) all opposed the Afghan War then and now. FEINSTEIN and Pelosi now believe the Afghan War to be a mistake and call for an immediate pullout, as does Murtha. I won’t even get into Cindy Sheehan who calls the Afghan War an atrocity, and along with other Dems has pushed for a “negotiated settlement with bin Laden.”
Actually, Jim, I do believe what you’ve listed here is a hodgepodge of truths, half-truths, and outright falsehoods. Let’s clarify:
I do believe Biden said some anti-Afghan war stuff prior to the campaign, but I believe he’s since recanted. If he continues to be against the war, I hereby rebuke him.
Michael Moore is not part of the Democratic establishment, ditto Cindy Sheehan (who I generally disagree with.) Jimmy Carter’s role is that of a retired CEO – he still bums around the place from time to time, but doesn’t have that much actual pull. Move On is a large, but loose, organization, and I believe it’s incorrect to paint every one of its members with the org’s initial anti-war stance (especially given that its ranks swelled well after that time, largely during the run-up to the 2004 elections). Regardless, I also take this opportunity to rebuke their anti-war stance.
You make many claims against folks such as Biden, Boxer and Feinstein… and, more importantly, Pelosi and Murtha, being _currently_ against the Afghanistan war. I believe these claims are false, but hereby invite you to prove me wrong and bring up some quotes from reputable media sources, indicating that these guys are currently against the Afghanistan war. Thanks.
Dave-
_in answer to my question as to why the moderation of the Democratic leadership bothers him_
bq. It doesn’t, Chris: I’m a Democrat. But I’m a Scoop Jackson Democrat. What bothers me are the activists in the party pushing the party closer and closer towards unelectability.
If it doesn’t bother you, Dave, then I’m not sure what to make of stuff like this from comment #14:
bq. Or, in other words, the authorization to use force doesn’t have much relevance in characterizing the Democratic Party foreign policy.
It seemed pretty clear to me that you were saying the Democrats were defined not by what they _did_, but by what certain of their members _said_. But perhaps I’ve misunderstood you.
Regardless, especially as the war in Iraq has become less and less popular, I again fail to see why you don’t have just as much reason to be worried about fringe activists on the Republican side, as personified by Powerline, Little Green Footballs, and Free Republic… the doppelgangers of the dread Kos/MoveOn/DU, as it were. Care to elaborate?
And last but not least, AL-
bq. Chris, here’s a question – how do you feel about the netroot’s efforts to run a candidate against Joe Lieberman?
The short answer is, not very strongly one way or another.
The longer answer is, I’m not particularly a fan of Lieberman. Partially I don’t care for the corporate shilling you mention, partially I never liked his role in the whole video games rating brouhaha, and partially, yes, I don’t like that he’s covered for the Bush administration – not just on being for the Iraq war, but on torture issues and Patriot Act issues and Social Security issues and a whole bunch of other things. I do think if someone closer to the Democratic mainstream was in his position, we might have a better shot at stopping some of the stuff that’s been getting through the Senate. That said, I do recognize that he’s got a fair amount of seniority – not a good thing to give up – and he comes across as being a personally decent guy.
So I have mixed feelings on trying to unseat him in the primaries. But what it comes down to is this: it’s a free country, and people, at all levels, are free to do what they want, whether that’s speak out against the guy, raise money for his primary challengers, raise money for him directly, etc. And in the end, the voters of Connecticut will decide what’s right for them, and that’ll be the end of it.
I believe that’s a pretty thorough and honest answer to your question. Now I have one for you:
To what extent do you actually agree with the stuff guys like Unbeliever and Joe Katzman have been saying about the Democratic party?
I ask because, on the one hand, you were saying this a few days ago:
bq. The problem is that if you let people who side with you say repugnant things, without any response from you – you risk being tarred with what they say.
But, on the other hand, you’ve been posting here for quite a while, and Joe et al have been saying this stuff about the Democratic party for quite a while, and I haven’t seen you take much disagreement with any of it. And certainly most Democrats would find Joe’s statement above repugnant, not to mention many moderates.
Now, you claim you’re working on a long post about a national security policy for the Democratic party. But many around here seem to think it’s a totally lost cause, and Mr. Katzman, for all his talk about the potential mechanisms of reform, seems exceedingly pessimistic about the idea. Moreover, according to Joe, a large percentage of the Democratic party is full of “these people” who are “quite understanding and even supportive when force is used against the US or its allies.”
Now, if you believe that – if you even suspect it to be the case – why on earth would you want to be associated with such people, and such a party? And if you don’t believe it, why haven’t you condemned it? Why are you hanging out with people who don’t merely Disagree With But Tolerate Your Views On Progressive Taxation And Gay Marriage, but who literally think that your nominal party is this close to being outright traitors?
I’m really interested in your answer to this one.
. . . if the core of Democratic foreign policy and military policy is to be devised to oppose Bush, and make him look bad – as opposed to opposing our enemies and making them look bad – the right-wing point that the progressives see Bush as a bigger enemy than Bin laden is just proved again.
Boy, this is wrong on just so many levels.
On a basic one, let me propose this: Sigger quotes Silber (not a Democrat, as I recall, but a libertarian) to the effect that: (1) attacking Iran is a very bad idea; (2) “all the Bush supporters, including almost all Republicans and conservatives” are pushing this idea; (3) now “even . . . many liberals and progressives” have joined in. Silber (and, by implication, Sigger) are not “devising policy to oppose Bush and make him look bad”, they’re opposing a bad policy that Bush happens to be pushing, and chiding Democrats who adopt “[a] view [that] is completely indefensible”.
Dave Schuler et al: You appear to misunderstand the word “pacifist”. A pacifist is someone who rejects the use of violence even in self-defence. A person who rejects the use of violence only in aggression is not a pacifist, merely a normal decent human being.
Robert McDougall –
Hmmmm. The quote was “Why are the left-wing bloggers at Washington Monthly and Daily Kos echoing the administration’s lines?” Not “Why are the left-wing bloggers at Washington Monthly and Daily Kos proposing such a self-evidently bad policy?” I’ll stick on this issue, I think.
A.L.
Chris –
The key is ‘without any response from you.’ There’s a whole long set of posts here in which I do respond to the things that Joe and others say (not everyone – I’ve got limited time and an even more limited attention span. The most recent is my post on Iran – which as a side note, got pretty widely linked through the right-blogosphere and was a pretty overt criticism of Joe for suggesting that we bomb the crap out of the Iranians right now.
Now there are limits to my tolerance, and I’ll suggest you go back and look at an old post I did on LGF, in which I take Charles to task for not policing him comments.
So no, I can look in the mirror quite comfortably without wincing. I’ll note, however, that you’re perfectly prepared to let a sitting Democratic Senator get slammed by the netroots for – basically – his position on the war with a “Hey, it’s not _me_ doing it…” position.
I’ll suggest that this is a bad idea for two reasons. First, I think the netroots are setting themselves up to get crushed. I once explained to a dot-bomb client that “It’s a lot easier for Walmart to figure out how to do things on the Web than for you to figure out how to buy, market and ship a million SKU’s.” I was right.
Next, because the clear message to a guy like me is that if I disagree on the war, nothing else matters. Buh-bye. That’d be fine if it wasn’t a contest where votes counted.
Finally, and I hate to keep harping, because it violates the stricture laid down by John Schaar and frequently quoted by me:
I cite it in “a post”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/004231.php where I say the following:
I’ll stand by those words.
A.L.
This link “here regarding the City of Arcata CA”:http://www.ips-dc.org/citiesforpeace/arcataBTH.htm
probably is indicative of Boxer and Feinstein’s base. You can’t have military policy with that base. Period. Full stop.
It’s instructive that while opposed to filibustering Alito, when Sheehan threatened to run against Feinstein, she caved and supported the filibuster. Pelosi was assailed verbally in a meeting with her constituents over the presence of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a bunch of “9/11 was a conspiracy” nuts. Murtha of course has called for troops to be deployed to Okinawa from both Iraq and Afghanistan.
This link here about Pelosi’s visit back home from “sfgate.com”:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/15/BAGSMGNJDL15.DTL
Is also instructive. Code Pink, Moveon, Kos, etc. run the Party. THEY ARE the money base. Moore, Hollywood, and others provide the funds that gets politicians re-elected. You can’t have a sound military policy and cater to Code Pink. That’s why under Bill Clinton the military languished, with many staffers openly hostile to it; and one appointee as undersecretary of the Army determined to “root out it’s aggressive male patriarchy” or somesuch nonsense.
MOVEON got their fave (along with Kos) appointed as DNC Chair. As they said, “it’s our party, we bought it, we’re doing what we want with it.”
Howard Dean (unplugged in San Antonio before he met with Code Pink): “Dean: Well, I think our military is working very hard to do that. But let’s not forget this is ultimately what America had to do in Vietnam. Ultimately they said we are gonna turn this over to the Vietnamese and of course the South Vietnamese couldn’t manage to take care of their own country. As I said, I supported President Bush’s, the first President Bush’s war in Iraq and I supported the President’s war in Afghanistan, but I do not believe in making the same mistake twice and America appears to have made the same mistake twice . I wish the President had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we’d gotten in there. The idea that we’re going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong. And I’ve seen this before in my life and it cost us 25,000 brave American soldiers in Vietnam and I don’t want to go down that road again, [sic] get out of there and take the targets off our troop’s back we need to maintain a presence in the area so we can deal with terrorism but not in Iraq.”
John Kerry: “Kerry: But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you’ve got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You’ve got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women , breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not…”
Regarding Boxer I know she’s advocated immediate troops withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq along with Murtha and Pelosi and Jim Moran, but I can’t find the cite. I do know she voted against the $87 billion dollars to fund the Iraq and Afghan wars but didn’t vote for it before voting against it like John Kerry. So she is at least consistent.
I honestly don’t see how any Party that has leaders such as Jack Murtha, Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi etc meeting with and accepting awards from Code Pink can be thought of as serious on National Defense. You may check out Code Pink “here”:http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?list=type&type=3 and see for yourself. It is affiliated with a Trotskyite Marxist group, and run by Medea Benjamin.
I can’t speak for the others, but my large and eternal differences with GWB on stem cell research, abortion rights, environmental protection, and so one will mean nothing when a city or three is nuked, and unlike Code Pink I don’t think holding hands and singing while hating America and straight white men is going to stop it. Therefore I hope for a disastrous defeat by Democrats so the insane nutcases from Pelosi, Code Pink, Moveon, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and the rest can be tossed aside and real, middle class Dems like Tom Vilsack or Joe Lieberman or Dick Gephardt can be brought to prominence and show some sanity.
The Dem Party is offering like Ed Begley Jr, bike paths to fight bin Laden and Ahmadinejad. This speaks for itself. There is no place for a Lieberman or Gephardt Democrat like myself in the Party anymore.
Did you really expect anything more serious than “framing?”
Where have you been? That party hasn’t had it in ’em to take on a serious foreign policy issue since the departure of JFK.
LBJ didn’t have it, and not a single one of them has had it since.
People like Zell Miller are long gone.
DUH………………
AL-
bq. The key is ‘without any response from you.’ There’s a whole long set of posts here in which I do respond to the things that Joe and others say (not everyone – I’ve got limited time and an even more limited attention span. The most recent is my post on Iran – which as a side note, got pretty widely linked through the right-blogosphere and was a pretty overt criticism of Joe for suggesting that we bomb the crap out of the Iranians right now.
I freely admit that as of late you’ve been more critical of the execution of the war in the past month, and, accordingly, of proponents of the war like Joe.
However, what I was actually asking is if you’ve ever *specifically* disagreed with Joe when he (or anyone else) goes into one of his “they’re not anti-war, they’re on the other side” moments about the Democrats. Comment or post is fine, and you don’t even have to fully dig it up – just give me a specific month or two and I can take a look through the archives.
bq. I’ll note, however, that you’re perfectly prepared to let a sitting Democratic Senator get slammed by the netroots for – basically – his position on the war with a “Hey, it’s not me doing it…” position.
Well, no, that’s an oversimplification of what I said. My complaints – and the complaints of the guys trying to oust Lieberman, if you’ve taken a look at their sites – also include stuff about Lieberman wanting to “compromise” with the Bush administration on Social Security, at a time when the admin’s plan was sinking like a lead balloon. The war’s certainly part of that, tho, which segues into your bit about why the Lieberman thing’s a bad idea…
bq. Next, because the clear message to a guy like me is that if I disagree on the war, nothing else matters. Buh-bye. That’d be fine if it wasn’t a contest where votes counted.
I certainly can’t stop you, or anyone else, from interpreting the thing the way you see fit. However, I will suggest that the dividing line is not “Iraq war supporter == bad”, it’s “Bush’s execution of the Iraq war supporter == bad”. Especially after this past year, I think there’s a pretty sizable difference between the two, and that being on the non-Bush side of the equation is probably a political winner, all other things being equal.
As for your first complaint that the “netroots” are setting themselves up for failure… so what? As I said, I’m pretty much neutral in this thing – absent a battle so fierce it mortally wounds both sides (which seems unlikely from what I can tell about the Republican challengers in Connecticut) it’s survival of the fittest, and may the best org win.
And, er, Jim? You do realize that a long, rambling post filled with chains of associations, innuendo and long quotes that don’t address the matter at hand isn’t anywhere near proof of what I asked? If you can’t find a direct quote of Boxer, Murtha, etc., advocating immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, either search harder for the quote or admit you were wrong. It’s pretty simple.
Armed Liberal:
The quote was “Why are the left-wing bloggers at Washington Monthly and Daily Kos echoing the administration’s lines?”
Two interpretions: (1) The administration’s lines (on all topics) must be opposed, whatever they are, just because they’re the administration’s lines. (2) The administrations lines (on Iran) must be opposed because they’re wrong.
Evidence for (2)? “Ludicrous notion”; “not reasoned discourse [but] hysteria, pure and simple”; “what makes so many people . . . so willing to fall for this kind of propaganda?”; “hysterical saber-rattling”; “the actual enemy is significantly different in nature and magnitude from the nightmarish cartoon the propagandists offer us”; “a perspective . . . that requires ‘permanent war’ to ensure its own continuing survival . . . that all too frequently courts Armageddon”.
Evidence for (1)? Zip.
What’s your game? Make a sincere effort at interpretation, using all available evidence? Or quote out of context, to serve a predetermined thesis?