Attention! DLC aknowledges both progressives and thewar in weekly email!

[katinmn]

But offers little more than RW talking points...even quotes Blair. :eyes: The DLC is either living in a dream world or assumes Americans are complete idiots.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253546&kaid=131&subid=192
DLC | New Dem Dispatch | September 30, 2005
Idea of the Week: What To Do Now In Iraq

While the Bush Administration has committed a long series of mistakes in the aftermath of the removal of Saddam Hussein, America must remain committed to success in Iraq. A failed state in Iraq would destabilize the entire region, hand our jihadist enemies a major victory and result in a devastating blow to our national security credibility and interests. But the right course now is neither to give the terrorists a victory by withdrawing, nor to continue Bush's failed policies. We urge progressives to place maximum pressure on the administration to reverse its mistakes and pursue a new strategy linked to clear benchmarks for success in Iraq and in the broader war on terror.

Here are three ways the U.S. can do exactly that:

First, we should formally disclaim any interest in permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq; clearly shift the primary responsibility of defending the country to the Iraqi military (with embedded Coalition troops), and adopt a joint military strategy based on proven principles of counterinsurgency. The last point means abandoning Vietnam-style "search and destroy" missions against the insurgency, and instead focusing on progressively securing territory where reconstruction can proceed and normal civic life can resume.

Second, we should launch a new political strategy aimed relentlessly at winning Sunni support for the new government, and at isolating jihadists. We still have considerable leverage among Shi'a and Kurdish leaders; we should use it to push for confidence -- building measures like the integration of communal militias into the Iraqi army and police forces; a blanket amnesty for former Baathists not implicated in atrocities; and for intensified talks with Sunnis on supplemental protocols to the proposed constitution that would ensure a viable central government and minority rights.

Third, we should muster all our diplomatic resources to create a more supportive international environment for the new Iraqi government. It should not be that hard to establish a UN-authorized international contact group to coordinate political support and economic assistance.

We should cash our sizable chits with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to work directly with Iraqi Sunni Arabs, using economic incentives where possible, to undermine support for insurgency and encourage political engagement. These Arab states should also push Syria (in conjunction with potential U.N. sanctions) to finally close off travel routes into Iraq for jihadists.

We should formally push for indictment of chief terrorist Zarquawi for crimes against humanity in Iraq, drawing worldwide attention to the vicious anti-Shi'a ethnic cleansing campaign that characterizes the insurgency. All these steps are politically feasible, but there's no evidence the administration is taking them.

In calling for this new strategy, we acknowledge that we are asking brave Americans to sacrifice still more for a crucial goal under the direction of an administration that has failed so often to pursue that goal competently or honestly. We share the anger of most progressives towards Bush's blunders, even as we urge them not to let that anger obscure the very real national stake we all have in taking every step possible to leave Iraq in a condition where it will not become a failed state and a terrorist base for global operations.

As usual, Tony Blair best articulated those stakes, for our people and his, just this week:

"This is a global struggle. Today it is at its fiercest in Iraq. It has allied itself there with every reactionary element in the Middle East. Strip away their fake claims of grievance and see them for what they are: terrorists who use 21st century technology to fight a pre-medieval religious war that is utterly alien to the future of humankind."

That's a reality that all of us, whether or not we supported the original invasion of Iraq, need to keep in mind, holding our leaders most accountable not for their blunders, but for their willingness to recognize them and change course now.

[Dover]

If you hadn't mentioned this was from the DLC, I would have assumed

it came from the GOP.

[AJH032]

40. I wouldn't

No GOP newsletter would say the Bush administration has made mistakes in the first sentence. That said, I certainly don't agree with what the DLC is saying here.

[Dover]

1. If you hadn't mentioned this was from the DLC, I would have assumed

it came from the GOP.

[katinmn]

2. Yes, isn't that something?

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

53. I thought it came from Cindy Sheehan

Anger at Bush's bungling, no permanent bases, no search and destroy, Iraqi troops providing security, focus on rebuilding..

CS: When we say now, we don't mean that they can all come home tomorrow. I hope everybody knows that. We have to start by withdrawing our troops from the cities, bringing them to the borders and getting them out. We have to replace our military with something that looks Arabic, something that looks Iraqi, to rebuild their country. You know, they have the technology, they have the skills, but they don't have any jobs right now.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3204

[IndianaGreen]

66. DLC calls it "Bush's bungling." We call it Bush's "war crimes."

The DLC still supports the war and wants to win it.

The Left wants the US out immediately and unconditionally so that the Iraqis can decide for themselves what to do with the mess we created in the name of bourgeois "freedom and democracy."

[sandnsea]

69. Answer my post

Is that or is that not what Cindy said? She said she doesn't mean "out immediately" when she says "out now". So which is it, because I'm honestly damned confused.

Cindy says she supports our troops being removed from the cities so Iraqis can create security and begin rebuilding, the DLC says no more search and destroy so the Iraqi's can begin providing their own security and begin rebuilding. A functional Iraq (not winning) is an element of both their strategies.

I also think if there's a stretch of dirt, and I call it a trail and you call it a bike path, we ought to both be able to get to the end of it without a shoving match. How stupid to let people continue to die over word games, and that's from both sides.

Sometimes I think the left is more interested in winning the ideological battle over the war than actually ending the war.

[IndianaGreen]

71. Your confusion is self-induced

What part of OCCUPATION do you not understand?

Perhaps if you were to allow the thought in your mind that the US invasion of Iraq was the same criminal act as Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, then perhaps you will understand that just as the world demanded the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the same demand is now made of US forces in Iraq.

I don't want any more names on a future Iraq War Memorial, and neither should you.

[sandnsea]

72. Just writing what I read

and also what I've been told. "Out Now" doesn't actually mean "now". Don't get mad at me about it, I'm not the one that's not saying what I mean.

[MisterP]

3. will these monsters tell again us how goddamn VITAL and ESSENTIAL they

are to the party and the country?
at least with the neocons you know what you're getting!

[IndianaGreen]

9. I don't see Al From and his DLC cronies enlisting in the military

They and their Freeper friends should be standing in line at their local Army recruiting office demanding to be allowed to enlist in order to fight the war they love so much.

[Dave Reynolds]

4. That's the DLC I know and love,

thinking that yes indeed, we are all idiots.


"taking every step possible to leave Iraq in a condition where it will not become a failed state and a terrorist base for global operations. "

Too late.

[MissWaverly]

5. what did Galloway say in "The Grapple in the Apple"

about Hitchens willing to fight till the last drop of someone else's
blood. If a former US general is calling Iraq the greatest strategic
military disaster in our history, it's not business as usual people,
it's time to think outside the box, staying the course is not cutting
it.

[katinmn]

7. Exactly. Did you catch the last line of the DLC missive?

"That's a reality that all of us, whether or not we supported the original invasion of Iraq, need to keep in mind, holding our leaders most accountable not for their blunders, but for their willingness to recognize them and change course now."

WTF? When has Bush (the giggling murderer} ever hinted that he blundered or that he intends to "change course?" Never.

These DLC people are wacked out, man!

:wtf:

[MissWaverly]

14. we are losing sight of the problem

Iraq went through a 2 month war that did little damage to the country,
it is now in total ruin and chaos after a 2 year occupation that has failed miserably, can a country that is twice the size of Idaho, with 26 million people and sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the
world be lifted above 3rd world status and enabled to once again take
its place as an affluent and stable country, YES, the fact that it has
not done so must be due to the OCCUPATION. It is not a coincidence.

[renie408]

29. Could they be talking about Dems that voted for the war?

[stevedeshazer]

6. Jesus H. Christ. Democrats gone MILD!

This is all they have?

Can someone tell me again why we need these guys? :eyes:

jeeez....

[IndianaGreen]

10. These are the people we must fight and defeat in 2008!

They will try like crazy to prevent the antiwar grassroots from nominating a candidate that does not support the DLC agenda. We must defeat the DLC if we have any hopes of defeating the GOP in November 2008.

[katinmn]

13. Yep. They are the very same as the Repukes, IMO.

[IndianaGreen]

8. I'll take Walter Wolfgang over Tony Blair and the DLC anyday!

Walter Wolfgang is the octogenarian Holocaust survivor that was forcibly removed from Labour Party Conference for daring to utter the word "nonsense" during Jack Straw's speech in which Straw defended the war in Iraq. Wolfgang's criticism of Blair's New Labour, could easily apply to Al From's New Democrats. Here is a portion of his article originally published in The Independent, and republished by Common Dreams:

Published on Friday, September 30, 2005 by the Independent/UK
'We Have Been Lied to About The War. I Dared to Speak the Truth'
by Walter Wolfgang

My case is not important. But what happened to me when I was ejected from the Labour conference - simply for a one-word protest during Jack Straw's speech this week - tells us there is something deeply wrong with the culture of our Government under Tony Blair.

We have been lied to about the war. But not only that. The party has been manipulated so that it has not been allowed to discuss the issue properly.

Indeed, the Labour leaders have got so nervous of criticism that when I shouted the single word "nonsense"- when the Foreign Secretary sought to paper over the issue with smooth words - party officials sent the bouncers in. Even one word of criticism, it seems, was too much.

<snip>

When I was a child living in Germany in the late 1930s, with relatives who died in the concentration camps, things were very frightening. But the policy of the American government today frightens me too. And so does the attitude of the British Government.

Power corrupts, it is said, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. This is increasingly clear in our post-Cold War era. There is today only one superpower and therefore that superpower has to be restrained by the good advice of its allies. But what Tony Blair has done is the opposite. He has confirmed the prejudices of George Bush, making it much harder for a superpower to get out of its bad habits. We made a mistake by invading Iraq and we should recognize that. Now we have got to leave. Our continued presence in Iraq is part of the problem. It cannot be part of the solution. What has happened in Basra illustrates the mess we have got ourselves in. The situation is difficult enough without us making it more so. The best thing is to confine troops to barracks and having done so bring them home as soon as possible.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0930-22.htm

[Pithy Cherub]

11. The DLC has turned the corner and is marching over the cliff - ALONE!

Good grief, this is an exercise in trying to write a tragic comedy with other people's children dying for the blunders of Bush and ALL of his enablers. Yes, I know the DLC cannot and will not admit they made an error worthy of historic ridicule. The DLC will "survive" the lemming like jump into the deep abyss without my time, money or safety parachute.

:eyes:

[katinmn]

12. Agreed. The DLC is enabling Bush, at our expense!

:grr:

[FrenchieCat]

15. Well, I found one somewhat familiar part.....otherwise, it stinks....

the Bush Administration has committed a long series of mistakes in the aftermath of the removal of Saddam Hussein
No Shit, DLC Sherlocks! :think:
Also made mistake of removing Saddam by waging war....but why mention it? :shrug:

A failed state in Iraq would destabilize the entire region, hand our jihadist enemies a major victory and result in a devastating blow to our national security credibility and interests.
I agree, but we have already suffered the devastating blow to our national credibility.
That was the day we went to war with Iraq :eyes:

Give the Terrorists a victory by withdrawing
Terrorists? You mean insurgents, right? (lieberman must have written this part).
They already have a victory. :shrug:


We urge progressives to place maximum pressure on the administration to reverse its mistakes
Hel-LO??? NewsFlash!...the mistakes are irreversable, as what's done can't just be undone!
But maybe we can try something new like A QUICk EXIT STRATEGY? :think:

These Arab states should also push Syria (in conjunction with potential U.N. sanctions) to finally close off travel routes into Iraq for jihadists.
Are we SO much better than Syria, that we aren't even gonna try to talk to them ourselves?
Use Saudi Arabia as a proxy to "push" its neighbor? bad idea.:nuke:

As usual, Tony Blair best articulated those stakes, for our people and his, just this week
"As Usual, Tony best articulated those stakes"? NOT!
He helped get us into this mess :dunce:
....so now we should heed his wise words once more? :sarcasm:

It should not be that hard to establish a UN-authorized international contact group to coordinate political support and economic assistance.
Wanna bet?

holding our leaders most accountable not for their blunders, but for their willingness to recognize them and change course now.
:wtf:
Yeah...why don't we just give BushCo a great big "pass"? :crazy:

"...we should formally disclaim any interest in permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq"
Doh....yea-Ah! :eyes:

Wes Clark mentioned that item as part of his plan.....
But he used the word publicly "forswear"...which is a tinch bit stronger.
Apart from this one move that we had better make....this plan stinks :hurts:
and the framing here in reference to this fucked up administration makes me want to :puke:!





THIS MUST BE THE "BIDEN PLAN"



:think: D :crazy: L :hurts: C !

[bee]

16. "to give the terrorists a victory by withdrawing" ?!

Ive said it before and Ill say it again.
f*ck the dlc. :nuke:

[paulk]

17. I really don't see your point

you haven't offered a critique that addresses this statement at all.


No, really. Make some points beyond empty anti - DLC rhetoric. What is specifically wrong with this statement? What right wing talking points? What's wrong with Blair's quote?


Provide something other than a vehicle for the usual empty headed drivel that passes for argument here on DU.

[katinmn]

22. Every post other than yours contains a critique

Read them all.

Simply put: DLC=RNC. No difference. They are political windbags first, policymakers second.

DU might be an "empty-headed" discussion board to you, but if you look at the rules, DU is for "Progressive" Democrats.

Progressives do look at things a lot differently than DLC Democrats.

[paulk]

32. LOL

you call those critiques??

Saying RNC = DLC isn't a "critique". It's knee jerk juvenalia.

Answer my questions!!! Where are the "right wing talking points" !!! What's wrong with what Tony Blair said?? Get specific - what's wrong with this statement? This is a discussion board - discuss something! This "I hate the DLC" circle jerk isn't a discussion!

To say "everybody agrees with me, therefore you're wrong", isn't an argument! Why do you think you speak for all progressive?? Was there an election or something??

Constrain your arguments to this particular DLC article.

I'm waiting.

[katinmn]

36. Why bother with someone who refuses to see?

[katinmn]

37. I'll let others explain how the DLC doesn't respect the people

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0304-27.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-32.htm

[paulk]

51. and here come the personal attacks

right on time....


What makes you think your sight is any clearer than mine!

You can't even defend your posts.

[sendero]

39. The FACT..

.... that there is NO STRATEGY ON EARTH, FROM THE MINDS OF DLC'ers, FROM BUSH**, FROM EVEN CLARK WHO I LOVE, NONE, there is nothing that is going to save Iraq from civil war.

Come back in 3 years and tell me I'm wrong.

This is the same shit, different decade. "We should do this" and "we should do that", it is ALL REARRANGING DECK CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC.

The ONLY TIME we could have prevented this was before the FIRST TANK ROLLED INTO BAGHDAD.

Now, we can just throw good lives and good money after bad. Talking about how "disastrous" it will be is pointless. The cancer has metastatized. It is fucking over.

[paulk]

54. ranting sure is fun, isn't it!

does your post have anything to do with mine?

[sendero]

62. No less a rant..

.. than your pointless post, and if you can't see the relevance far be it from me to waste my time pointing it out.

[paulk]

64. and again! a personal attack!

the last refuge of those with nothing to say.

[sendero]

70. Like ..

.... you.

[Zhade]

74. Saying your post is pointless is NOT a personal attack.

Saying "you're a fucking idiot" would be a personal attack.

[paulk]

75. the point of my post is that the poster's rant

had nothing to do with what I posted.

Which, I admit, is not unusual here at DU....

;)

[Zhade]

79. Nor is defense of the indefensible (like the war).

Comes with the territory, when you have as diversely-informed a group as DU.

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. here is a link (with detailed references) on the leading DLC think tank

-- you can agree or don't agree with this analysis. And I do think it is fair to say that the DLC is not completely monolithic.

But there think tank, "The Progressive Policy Insitute" does represent the direction they want to take the world.

the link:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/ppi.php

[katinmn]

27. Thanks for the link. Yup. They truly disagree with progressive

thinking. They want to be the centrists, which another poster aptly referred to as "Democrats gone mild." :)

I think DLCers should form a new party!

[paulk]

33. I am interested in this specific article, which I don't think warrants the

abuse being heaped on it. Bringing up the PPI is a strawman.

The DLC is not monolithic, as you say, and I don't think it helps our political situation to indulge in the sort of kneejerk bashing that DU loves to wallow in when the red flag of "DLC" gets waved in it's face.

[personman]

65. Where to begin...

"to give the terrorists a victory by withdrawing"

First, my opinion on the war with Iraq, is that in the end, through the diplomacy, the war may have ended up being necessary. Unfortunately we never had the chance to find out because Duhh-bya stopped the multilateral diplomacy effort because either it didn't work fast enough for him (and this is if you give him the benefit of the doubt!) or because he was afraid that it might succeed (probably closer to the truth I'd wager).

First I'll argue the implied definition of terrorists in that statement. It strikes me as hypocritical that when people in a foreign country attempt to defend themselves from occupation, they are terrorists, but when our country launches an unprovoked, unjustified war of aggression under the false pretext of protecting ourselves from an imminent threat, it's a noble, righteous cause, completely justified and beyond reproach. I think that calling them terrorists is just the sort of buzz word game that makes it easy to write off their arguments. IMO it's a very two-dimensional, narrow-minded way of looking at the world. We should hold ourselves to the same standards of conduct we criticize others for violating, otherwise what’s the point?

How backwards is the assumption that the people defending their country from foreign aggression are the terrorists, and the country whose army is invading are the righteous victims?

What? Terrorists? Why should we negotiate with terrorists? They're terrorists! Terrorists! Not thinking, feeling, human-beings of flesh and blood like you and I! So write them off...

Terrorism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Is there any more glaring example of this, do you think, then the United States government? Certainly the largest and most prolific terrorists, with the most resources. Does a reasonable argument exist that the U.S. government doesn't fit that description to the letter?

When you make diplomacy impossible, you make war inevitable.

Second I'll argue with the idea that withdrawing means defeat (a victory for “terrorists” would be a loss for us right?). Our goal is to leave. Is it really worth staying there longer and letting more of our soldiers and Iraq's people die and suffer, just to prove the point that we are “winners”? Isn’t that a pretty petty reason to allow continued suffering and loss of life? Aesthetics?

Which begs my next question, do people think there can be "winning" in this situation?
Maybe it's good for my mind that I didn't have much interest in sports growing up, I've heard Chomsky theorize that that might be where a lot of this mindless "root for your team to win" mindset comes from. Do we really even deserve to “win” this war we started on false pretexts with all sorts of manipulation? Why?

All of these assumptions I’ve pointed out strike me as right-wing. So for that reason I really don’t see saying RNC = DLC as a cheap shot. Bush has used that same phrase, or ones very similar to it.

Seeing what I can do to dissect an 8 word sentence fragment, is it any wonder that Bush’s speeches send me into conniption fits?

-personman

[paulk]

68. that's a valid point -

too often the DLC has been willing to accept/adopt the rhetoric of the right - to use "buzz words" like "terrorist" or "jihadist" without adequately defining who they are talking about. Which detracts from their message and leads many to reject that message without considering it. And it's probably even done on purpose.

2nd point - First you have to define winning before you can define defeat. This article doesn't really go far enough in defining what the DLC means by winning, other than rejecting the Bush Admin. definition. If they even have one?

And saying RNC = DNC is way too broad a statement based on parsing a few sentences. Though I do understand that the habit of using weaselly language is the same sort of thing Mehlman, etc, are fond of.

I think you've made some good criticisms - but my point here is that too many on DU are eager to make knee jerk denouncements of the DLC without even considering what's been said. This statement from the DLC shows a willingness to move in the right direction, IMO. That should be encouraged.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. Tony Blair seems very good at projection.

"Strip away their fake claims of grievance and see them for what they are: terrorists who use 21st century technology to fight a pre-medieval religious war that is utterly alien to the future of humankind."

This statement sums up Bush, Blair, and their agendas perfectly.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Well Slap my Face!

I believe you are on to somethin' there!

[flpoljunkie]

19. Yes, Tony, but the Bush administration refuses to change course, and they

damn sure are not going to give up the military bases that are guarding the oil fields and the pipelines.

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. trying to be the "competent and reasonable" Right-wing extremist

The general theme of DLC thinking whether domestically or internationally seems to follow the basic essence of right-wing ideology--(never ending war and corporate interest first) but to do it with a bit more precision and with the tone of a group of "reasonable sounding" business managers.

My complements to katinmn for posting this and keeping the focus on the DLC's policies rather than arguing about who looses more votes for the Democratic Party. Remorse and contrition does not seem to be in the DLC's nature. When their policies are laid out for all to see (and I must admit that the DLC are not entirely monolithic) everyone can see that their philosophy is no more mainstream than the Family Research Council.

[katinmn]

23. Thanks, Douglas

:thumbsup:

I think it dawned on a lot of people last year that the Dem party had been taken over by corporate interests and their minions. Now we have their number and we are struggling to take back the party.

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. here is a very good link/info about DLC's leading think tank

here is the link:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/ppi.php

[ElectroPrincess]

25. Yes, over the past few months

the word "PROGRESSIVE" is seemingly being morphed into something SMARMY. :puke:

Nope, from now on I'm most comfortable referring to my philosophy as LIBERAL! :patriot:

[kitp]

28. quote from 'Wave Goodbye to the Bush Era'

Al-Ahram article has nice quote...

"The opposition party not only doesn’t oppose, it doesn’t propose alternatives either, because it has no ideas or because it lacks confidence in those it has been too timid to advance. This is not just a political problem; it is a systemic breakdown in the American democracy."

[Q]

30. A cynical point of view...

...might suggest that the DLC was established within the Democratic party to make sure that it loses. The party has been losing consistently since they took control in the 80s. The DLC would say that the party keeps losing because of the 'lingering' influence of the liberal ideology...but liberals and progressives haven't had any power within the party since BEFORE Clinton.

I'm convinced that the DLC was created by the Right to infiltrate the Dem party, get rid of the 'new deal' and keep it from becoming the majority again. The Dem party will be 'allowed' to have the majority and WH house again when they can prove to their corporate masters that they're no longer the 'party of the people'.

[mmonk]

31. The problem with the DLC

is it doesn't recognize that the insurgency is more than "jihadists". They drink the kool aid also. The tensions in the artificially drawn Iraq are very old tensions.

[cally]

34. Isn't this similar to what Clinton and Clark

are proposing? The proposal seems in line with both of them and many other Democrats.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Actually, not really......there are a few similar objectives

to Clark's plan.....but in its goals, tone, and reasoning the DLC statement it is not the same as what Clark proposes....(I don't know about "Clinton's".)

read my post in reference to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2126278&mesg_id=2126448

Clark doesn't consider Tony Blair as the voice of reason nor does he advise that we should listen to him.

Clark doesn't propose that we should use Saudi Arabia to PUSH Syria (he states that we should talk to all of the neighbors) into cooperating, although he does suggest that we use DIPLOMACY by giving Iraqi's neighbors have a sizable seat at the table. That's not pushing, its called reasoning and listening and dialogue. The way that the DLC letter discusses "diplomacy" is in conjuction with how "easy" it would be for the U.N. to jump in -- That is a very optimistic view of something that won't be "easy", but would require an awful lot of consessions. So even their emphasis on "diplomacy" doesn't accurately portray the task at hand.

Clark wants the American economic monopoly in Iraq to end. Give Iraqis a bigger stake in the reconstruction and involve other nations (including Arab nations)as well.

Clark urges that Bush be held accountable for the biggest Foreign policy blunder in history. When you fuck up, you must fess up but that doesn't mean that you are "off the hook".

Clark says that if Bush doesn't change the direction...like now, then we should get our asses out of there within 6 months time and that we, the people, will be justified in demanding out of Iraq.

Clark wants the US to publicly forswear permanent US bases(much stronger and the DLC statement).

Clark suggests that training of Iraqi troops to be done by us AND our NATO allies....in Iraq, in the US, and in Europe, i.e., everywhere and anywhere that is a logical and plausible location in order to speed up the process (i.e., on our German bases, etc.) in order not lose a lot of Iraqi troups in the process.

Clark understands that language is important in framing, e.g., Insurgents are not necessarily "Terrorists" ....just like Katrina evacuees were not Refugees.

Clark acknowledges that there is no victory in the horizon possible, and that the most we can hope for is the least of the losing scenarios, considering that civil war has already started.

Clark knows that we have already lost all international credibility, and unless the leadership of this endeavor is changed, there will be no restoration of this.

Clark wants a relatively quick "Exit Strategy"(six months or else fuck it!)....not a "Let's stay and work on this indefinitely Strategy".

There's more difference.....but those listed are enough, I think to differenciate Clark's views from those in that letter..

[cally]

44. Thanks for the analysis..nt

[Pepperbelly]

38. the knee-jerk to anything DLC is predictable

and oddly enough, didn't counter the positions in the article.

I would be completely in favor of their first item --repudiate any interest in permanent bases? Are you guys in FAVOR of permanent bases in the middle east? I am not. The only people I know of in favor of mid-east bases are the PNAC.

Their second point, courting Sunni support and investment in stability and the constitution they adopted, is also a decent idea, one not pursued by the PNAC or the gop. What is the problem with this?

Their third point is not debatable either, no matter how we decide to leave. Call in all the chits from those we have helped and get them to help us get the hell out without allowing the region to slide into a massive civil war or plain old war against each other.

You guys should read past the labels and see what is actually written. It is enlightening.

[katinmn]

41. I recognize from previous posts that you are a steadfast DLC supporter

but I'll play along and answer your comments.

To those of us who favor immediate withdrawal, permanent bases are a moot point. We have been against permanent bases from the very beginning. As a matter of fact, it was the left-wing "extremists" of the party that first made the call that this was taking place. No matter how much Bush/Rice/Rumsfeld denies it, we know they plan to have a long-term presence in the region. They are just following PNAC.

Why not court support from all three ethnic groups and get the hell out? We have no business being there stirring up their internal problems and pitting one group against the other. The way to bring the violence to an end is to stop occupying their country. Half (or more) of those responsible for the violence are from outside Iraq. They are fighting the US in Iraq so they don't have to fight us in their country.

Do we have any chits left to call in? Who have we helped that is a position to help militarily? If you haven't noticed, Bush has a much lower approval rating around the world than he does here in the US. Besides that, Iraq is already in a civil war.

[Pepperbelly]

47. No, you have it quite wrong.

I am a supporter of actually thinking for myself rather than salivating like Pavlov's dog when some says "dee El Cee."

Regarding your comments on the substance of the article...

You are agreement with point 1, it appears although you want to claim credit for your homies in coming up with it. Okay. That's fine with me. I read about it here and thought it was a horrible, threatening thing. BTW, I favor immediate withdrawal from Iraq and permanent bases are not moot. We HAVE NOT withdrawn despite my desires and the whole issue is still very much in play.

Re: your response to 2, you clearly did not grasp the point of the argument. The two predominant groups in Iraq are the Shia and the Kurds. The Sunnis are a very large minority whose interests are at cross purposes with the other two. What they want is for the Sunnis to be convinced to accept a unified Iraq under the proposed Constitution. Personally, I think Iraq will either Balkanize or become an Islamic Republic on the order of Iran but if the Sunnis supported the current government there, it would certainly make the transition easier and less violent for all. While I favor immediate withdrawal, we, alas, have not withdrawn and this issue is still very much in play.

The Saudis could play a role as could the Jordanians and even Israel (by pulling in their horns to stop the escalating destabilization of the entire region.

[ProudDad]

57. The primary and fatal flaw

in the DLC "reasoning" is the belief the U.S. can do ANYTHING constructive in Iraq after illegally occupying their country and causing the damn problem in the first place.

This whole Iraq thing is SO MUCH like Viet-Nam it sends shivers down my spine. Nixon dragged Viet-Nam on and on and on saying he was trying to "create a viable state" and for his fucking "Peace with Honor" crap while millions (MILLIONS) of human beings died from his illegal bombing.

Viet-Nam ended when Watergate broke nixon's fucking back and his replacement HAD to get the hell out. When the U.S. got the hell out, the Vietnamese people did a rather admirable job of governing themselves.

This is just more condescending bullshit. The Iraqi people are certainly adult enough and educated enough to determine their own destiny. They've been able to govern their own affairs for what...10,000 years now!

This is such typical U.S. paternalism to think that WE KNOW BEST. What crap!!! The U.S. government CAN'T EVEN GOVERN THE U.S. EFFECTIVELY. They can't even fairly clean up after a hurricane. How the hell do they have the gall to try to tell someone else how to govern their own country.

[gulfcoastliberal]

52. Peperbelly isn't a DLC supporter like some other are

I respect Peperbelly and his opinions on the article here are correct - no perm bases, engage Sunnis, etc. He makes clear he favors immediate pullout of all troops. Plus, he's a cool dude.

[Douglas Carpenter]

59. well I anyone who likes Zippy can't be all bad

[Catrina]

42. From their first statement

<i>While the Bush Administration has committed a long series of mistakes in the aftermath of the removal of Saddam Hussein, America must remain committed to success in Iraq. </i>

Read that carefully ~ 'in the aftermath of the removal of Saddam Hussein'. Who asked them to remove Saddam Hussein? The Iraqi people? The American People? The British People? The Poles? Who? What was the reason given for this war??? WMDS AIRC? Where are they?

Did the DLC back this war? Seems from that statement they did. We told them why we opposed it. They didn't listen, now they want us to back them in trying to fix what most certainly, THIS ADMINISTRATION CANNOT FIX. Why? Because the whole world HATES them, and most importantly, all three Iraqi groups, hate them!! Why? Because they've KILLED and TORTURED god only knows how many of their friends and relatives!! I know, that's so naive of me to even mention.


And 'MISTAKES' 'BLUNDERS'!! Who DO they think they're kidding!! Are THEY that dumb or are they part of the PNAC dream, which was no blunder but a plan, which includes Iran and Syria!! And to call outright lying to the American people a 'mistake' or a 'blunder' with all the evidence now available, that their claim of WMDs was not 'bad intelligence' but a LIE!!

But even if we were stupid enough to be deceived by their twisted words, and agreed that this was all a big blunder. To get such a mess you have to have the most imcompetent, stupid, moronic, incapable bunch if idiots in charge of things, and they are asking people to send more of their loved to die while expecting the same incompetents to redo the whole thing they so fucked up in the first place??

And where do they get off saying 'America must remain committed?' Haven't they been listening? America is no longer committed!! America cannot afford any blood or money to commit to this crime!! Who are these people? Are they elected? The people have spoken, they were ignored before the war, they were right then, and they are right now.

The very last people on the face of the earth who can 'fix' the mess in Iraq are the ones who made it in the first place.

If there's one thing I hate more than a liar that I know is a liar trying to fool me, it's a liar who is pretending to be on my side and who's still not acknowledging that the whole mess was wrong in the first place. They are still supporting the invasion, I did not, do not, and never will.

And that's only their first statement ~ I don't have the patience or the time to tear apart the rest of their insulting diatribe!! What utter betrayal of Democrats to have to put up with this bull from a think tank that has nothing in common with the grassroots of this party. If they want to join US in ending this war, fine. Who on earth gave them the idea that they can tell us what ought to be done? They've been on the wrong side of this from the start!! We were on the right side.

Maybe what we need is a 'think tank' to combat all these 'think tanks' that seem to have taken over both parties, and look where they got us!! I need to forget about this for awhile!

[katinmn]

46. Al From, founder and CEO of the DLC, has never held elective office

and yet he gave himself the charge of "Re-inventing" the Democratic Party, setting Dem priorities and driving initiatives.

The people should just follow his vision, according to Al. For the most part, for the last 15 years Democrats have let the DLC set the agenda and the priorities and select the candidates.

Look where that got us. The DLC cost us the presidency, the House, and the Senate election after election.

Al From is wrong. The DLC is wrong and it has done a terrible disservice to the country.

And they have the nerve to say: "In calling for this new strategy, (actually the old "stay the course" strategy which Americans have already rejected) we acknowledge that we are asking brave Americans to sacrifice still more for a crucial goal under the direction of an administration that has failed so often to pursue that goal competently or honestly."

Huh? And what is the goal again?

The DLC is NOT the party nor does it reflect mainstream values. We are and we do. We cannot let this DLC usurp our rights to determine our priorities and develop policies.

More on the DLC from its website: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893

DLC Quick Facts:

Organization: The DLC is a nonprofit corporation exempt from tax under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is not a political committee and is not organized to influence elections. (b.s.)

Mission: The DLC's mission is to promote public debate within the Democratic Party and the public at large about national and international policy and political issues. Specifically, as the founding organization of the New Democrat movement, the DLC's goal is to modernize the progressive tradition in American politics for the 21st Century by advancing a set of innovative ideas for governing through a national network of elected officials and community leaders.

Chairman: Governor Tom Vilsack (D-IA)
Vice Chair: U.S. Senator Tom Carper (D-DE)
Chair of the DLC's American Dream Iniative: U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
Founder and Chief Executive Officer: Al From
President: Bruce Reed
Vice President and Political Director: Holly Page
Chief of Staff: Debbie Cox

[Pepperbelly]

48. two points ...

Absolute agreement is not something you will ever find in the political process and to discard the entire potato because of a bad spot is wasteful, particularly with the dearth of ideas in the party.

I favor immediate withdrawal. I supported it within a few months of the invasion. Prior to that, I was of mixed feelings about the whole thing. Of course, you may, as an ideologically pure individual, condemn me as a waffling DINO because I did not intuit that it was all lies if you wish but in my view, you would be dead wrong.

Other than that, I understand your positions outlined, agree with a number of them, and like you, am not currently up to a de-constructing the entire post. Neither the time nor the energy nor the desire.

[IndianaGreen]

43. The point is that the Iraq War itself is a war crime

The US should not have any troops in Iraq, much less bases temporary or permanent.

The Iraqi "constitution" is a sham, conducted under the shadows of American guns. It is no more valid that the constitution of Vichy France.

The ultimate question is: how many names do you want to see engraved on the panels of a future Iraq War Memorial? The Left wanted no names and no memorial at all, for we opposed the war from start. As it is now, today is not soon enough for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US and UK troops from Iraq. Republicans and their DLC war allies would have us stay there until the cows come home.

[Pepperbelly]

49. That is one of the points for sure

but it is not the only one.

Let me slow this down for everyone: I, too, advocate immediate withdrawal from Iraq. However, despite my position, as it turns out, we have not withdrawn from Iraq. No kidding, we're still there.

With that fact in mind, there are multitudes of paths into the future. The points that I elucidated from the article all affect those theoretical paths in positive ways. Acknowledging that simple reality would be far more beneficial than simply denying them because they are not what you want.

I am glad that they are contemplating the 'what if's of Iraq. While I would support the immediate withdrawal, I do not know that George Bush will comply anytime soon nor will all the howling from Common Cause cause George Bush to be frog-marched into the Hague anytime soon. He is a stubborn, willful man who is quite possible stealing 3 or 4 billion dollars a month from the cluster fuck.

In fact, the only hope that we will withdraw immediately is if the congressional gops put enough pressure on him because of their fears of the 06 election. That is, unfortunately, the only way it will happen.

[jonnyblitz]

55. YES!

great post.. :thumbsup:

[KoKo]

45. Pepperbelly, I don't think we have any "chits" left to call in. Bush used

them all when he lied us into Iraq. The whole world knows he's a liar..except for half of the American people who still believe in him.

Except for Point 1 of the DLC screed, the rest is that we should mount a propaganda campaign of disinformation a la Karen Huge's Good Will Missionary attempt at propaganda.

The DLC is so in bed with the Repug Think Tanks at this point that the difference is small enough to fit through a "needles eye."

Were you for Invading Iraq in the first place? Did you believe in the WMD? That's the only way I can understand your unfailing allegience to the DLC. :shrug:

[Pepperbelly]

50. you misunderstand ...

I support thinking for myself and I resist groupthink at every turn, no matter where I see it. I am a contrarian. I don't care for authority much either.

[ulysses]

56. while I agree with you in part,

I find it obnoxious as hell that *now* they're trying to play nice with progressives, and *still* not admitting that they made a damned huge mistake in supporting the invasion. I don't speak for anyone else, of course, but I suspect I'm not the only one.

And honest "we fucked up" would go a long way. I certainly don't expect it, but I don't intend to listen too closely to their paternalistic "urgings" without it.

Sorry for the repeated edits - I'm really tired.

[ProudDad]

58. The Fatal Flaw

in the DLC "reasoning" is the belief the U.S. can do ANYTHING constructive in Iraq after illegally occupying their country and causing the damn problem in the first place.

This whole Iraq thing is SO MUCH like Viet-Nam it sends shivers down my spine. Nixon dragged Viet-Nam on and on and on saying he was trying to "create a viable state" and for his fucking "Peace with Honor" crap while millions (MILLIONS) of human beings died from his illegal bombing.

Viet-Nam ended when Watergate broke nixon's fucking back and his replacement HAD to get the hell out. When the U.S. got the hell out, the Vietnamese people did a rather admirable job of governing themselves.

This is just more condescending bullshit. The Iraqi people are certainly adult enough and educated enough to determine their own destiny. They've been able to govern their own affairs for what...10,000 years now!

This is such typical U.S. paternalism to think that WE KNOW BEST. What crap!!! The U.S. government CAN'T EVEN GOVERN THE U.S. EFFECTIVELY. They can't even fairly clean up after a hurricane. How the hell do they have the gall to try to tell someone else how to govern their own country.

[fujiyama]

60. What is with the DLC's hard on

on Tony Blair? Do they find his tone sexy?

It reminds me of how various news stations (like CNN) will throw on a British voice, making them sound smart.

If the DLC thinks all other Dems are this stupid, they are sorely mistaken. We're not the ones enamored by a talking British poodle.

[Q]

73. You haven't heard of the 'Blair Democrats'?

Do a search on their website for BLAIR DEMOCRATS. Also...while you're there...look up 'national security democrats'.

It's a whole new party...and they didn't even tell US about it.

[gulliver]

61. Democratic Screw-up Council

Look at the last five years. These "leaders" have led the Democratic Party about as effectively as Bush has led the country. These people should focus on finding and recruiting leaders instead of making policy prescriptions. They are good for nothing right now...a mutual admiration society of the un-admirable.

[Roland99]

63. I found this sentence to be a bit...wistful >>>>

"We should cash our sizable chits with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to work directly with Iraqi Sunni Arabs"


That ain't gonna happen until the U.S. is gone.

[Darranar]

67. In other words, needlessly continue a devastating war for US domination.

No, thank you.

[OzarkDem]

76. Looks like they're starting to see things our way

Permanent presence in Iraq won't work for US

Multinational approach to peacekeeping should be pursued

They need to get off the idea that my tax dollars should fund all of it, though. Go get some money from the other oil producing nations, and UN & NATO allies.

Keep working on it, fellas and you'll come up with something workable.

[IndianaGreen]

77. The DLC is triangulating again!

They are as adept at the use of Orwellian language as the White House.

[Douglas Carpenter]

78. ya, it's their Orwellian language that really gets to me..

There has always been a conservative and even a "pro-corporate" wing of the Democratic Party. The DLC philosophy and strategy has dominated the party (long before there was an official DLC) in every single election since Robert Strauss became DNC Chair back in 76 or 77. Now suddenly they are the "new" Democrats. And mainstream and grassroots oriented Democrats are the "fringe" left. And every Democrat who ever lost an election was "ultra-liberal" or "far-left" no matter how mainstream and moderate their actual positions and record—facts don’t matter. (IE: Mondale and Dukakis -- but only after they lost--Howard Dean only when he started to move into the lead)

I can accept that there is a conservative wing of the Party. There always has been. I can an even accept that there is a corporate-friendly wing of the Party. There always has been. But they shouldn't expect unconditional loyalty when they engage in such vicious tactics against the mainstream Democrats.