The New York Sun, PNAC, Josh Marshall, TPM and CLARK

[DoveTurnedHawk]

<...>

When I interviewed Clark that <PNAC> passage was the one struck me most and the one that stood out in my mind. The analogy hadn't occurred to me before. But it's extremely apt. And the backroom politicking over Iraq is something I know a bit about.

Why it stuck in my mind was that it showed not only a deep grasp of foreign policy issues but an equally canny sense of the informal and extra-governmental ways policy gets hashed out in Washington. More than anything it signaled an understanding that what we've been seeing for the last two years is part of a much longer history stretching back into the late 1960s.

The point is that the CPD and PNAC advocacy were both cases in which outside pressure groups --- groups of neoconservatives --- basically B-teamed the given administration, getting around their flank by working congress and the media to force the administration's hand or make certain policy options politically unviable.

With Iraq policy this involved getting the Clinton administration off its policy of "dual containment" and toward one which, on paper at least, embraced the principle of "regime change" as American policy. This in fact was what happened with the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act in late 1998. The embryonic PNAC and other prominent neoconservatives worked the press, lobbied in congress, coordinated with the INC, and the then-weapons inspectors to push for a harder line against Iraq. And in significant ways they succeeded.

This isn't a secret or a slur. It's something the neocons see, with some good reason, as a feather in their cap.

<...>

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#100203302pm

DTH

[bicentennial_baby]

1. Excellent!

I love this part:

"The details of all this are too complicated to go into at the moment. But Clark's point isn't "crackpot" or "bizarre." He's got it exactly right. The analogy to the late Carter administration is quite apt. And Kristol, Schhuenemann and Stoll each know it. Indeed, they were each in their own way part of it.

There's nothing untoward about this. This is what democracy's about --- organizing people, pressuring elected leaders, shaping opinion, and so forth.

But when you see these slashing words from the neocons against Clark, it's not because he's "confused" about anything. It's because he's got their number. And they know it."

[DoveTurnedHawk]

2. Isn't It Great?

I love Josh Marshall. :-)

DTH

[RandomUser]

9. Yep

I like how Clark thinks strategically, and if you examine the interview you can see evidence of that. He doesn't say Iraq was wrong, and give the usually reasons recited by all the other candidates. He actually goes into in depth analysis and examines the decision making process and points out that the Bush administration is using an outdated model of geopolitics that can't deal with terrorism. And then he goes on to explain why it won't work.

[stickdog]

3. Five peas in a pod. (NT)

[SWPAdem]

4. Ah, the obligatory Clark bashing statement

You forgot to say that Josh Marshall is also a DNC/PNAC mole. Get with the program, Stickfigure.

[bicentennial_baby]

5. Kick

Good piece

:kick:

[DemCam]

6. And this is a good rebuttal, too.....

"But when you see these slashing words from the neocons against Clark, it's not because he's "confused" about anything.
It's because he's got their number. And they know it."

I would say he does...and the proof is in the spin.

[dkf]

7. Just curious.

Is there anyone here who didn't think that the "regime change" stance of the Clinton administration wasn't due to the influence of the PNAC?

I think I figured this out quite a bit ago.

[DemCam]

8. Deleted double here, folks.