DLC -- Kucinich and Rumsfeld cut from same cloth

[IrateCitizen]

Check out the latest winner from Will Marshall, you're sure to be taken aback.

DLC | Blueprint Magazine | January 8, 2004
Stay and Win in Iraq
By Will Marshall
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252289&kaid=450004&subid=900...


Are Dennis Kucinich and Donald Rumsfeld secret allies? You'd think the Democrats' most vocal peacenik and the GOP warlord would have little in common, but both seem to be in a hurry to get U.S. troops out of Iraq. Even with Saddam Hussein in the bag and awaiting trial, that's a bad idea.

<SNIP>

The escalating violence prompted facile and mostly misleading analogies between Iraq and Vietnam. But in one respect, the comparison is apt: The United States is once again waging a classic counterinsurgency campaign in a country whose culture seems worlds apart from ours. Like it or not, America is back in the business of winning hearts and minds.

<SNIP>

In fact, the coalition needs more of everything in Iraq: more light infantry, more bureaucrats, more reconstruction workers, more civil affairs officers, more linguists, and more intelligence agents. The most plausible way to meet these needs is to internationalize Iraq's reconstruction, so that we can tap the resources of other countries that have more experience in nation-building than we do. Instead, the administration is counting on Iraqis -- just emerging from a quarter-century of totalitarian terror -- to quickly do the job themselves.

<SNIP>

The administration has rightly made the democratic transformation of the greater Middle East the grand American project of the 21st century. That job starts in Iraq. If we fail here, our hopes for liberalizing the region will be stillborn. To create a stable, representative government in Baghdad, we need to show total commitment to quelling a motley insurgency that includes remnants of Saddam's security and intelligence services, disgruntled Sunnis, and foreign jihadists. Yet the timing of the administration's troop cuts seems dictated by the campaign calendar, not strategy.

<MORE AT THE ABOVE LINK>


A few points (see the areas in bold)

First, we know how the "winning of hearts and minds" went in past conflicts. It's basically a strategy of, "Let us buy your loyalty or we will kill you." I seem to remember that phrase thrown around a lot in the Vietnam campaign as well -- you know, the one that Marshall says has no resemblance to the current situation in Iraq.

Secondly, why in the f*** is he calling for more light infantry? I certainly hope he's not planning to use them for street patrols -- because doing so only demonstrates his complete and utter ignorance surrounding the roles of military forces. Infantry are meant for directly engaging enemy troops -- PERIOD. Any attempt to use them for policemen will result only in additional casualties to US forces due to their exposure to militants during patrols, followed by reprisal raids on said militants that will inevitably kill more civilians and strengthen the armed resistance. While he's at it, why doesn't he call for bringing in more M1 Abrams tanks to patrol the streets of Baghdad due to the lack of patrol cars? :wtf:

Thirdly, the endorsement of the PNAC campaign to "bring democracy at the point of a gun" to the Middle East is just beyond the pale. I would guess that while completely denigrating the views of those darned "leftists" who vehemently opposed this imperial invasion and occupation, Mr. Marshall will also be crying foul if those same leftists don't automatically pledge their allegiance to a candidate who endorses these aims. Simply amazing.

BTW-- thanks to Iverson for finding this and putting in on another thread. I just thought it deserved its own. Enjoy.

PS -- since this was locked by a mod in the GD forum but not moved, I am reposting it in what has been designated as the appropriate forum. If I am in error on this, I apologize.

[lcordero]

1. Will Marshall is a PNAC signatory

[goodhue]

2. absurd

Winning hearts and minds is a loosing business proposition for the US military. DK has known this all along and Rumsfeld has begun to grasp this of late. How many lives will be sacrificed for a foolhardy show of total commitment?

http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/

[Wetzelbill]

3. When I think of Rumsfeld, the first name that comes to mind is DK

Peas in a pod those two. I voted for DK because I'm a PNAC guy myself.

[rucky]

4. Great Googly Moogly

What a steaming heap of dogshit.

Bookmarked for anybody who doesn't think the DLC is all that bad.

[cosmicdot]

90. I'll bookmark it too - -

now, who is the DLC and its adjunct 'think tank' the PPI supporting for President?

the dots to connect are plain to see

and, who elected Will Marshall to be "President" of an organization called the Progress P Institute? or, I see, he "founded it"

hmmmmm


http://www.ppionline.org

The administration has rightly made the democratic transformation of the greater Middle East the grand American project of the 21st century. - Will Marshall

sounds fairly PNACky to me

Wake up Democrats!

[RichM]

5. Ain't a dime's worth of difference betw. Establishment Dems & GOP, to

paraphrase George Wallace.

Seriously, Bush's speech writers could have written this piece of tripe. "(O)ur hopes for liberalizing the region (ME)...," in a pig's eye.

Sure, I often think of Dennis and Rummy in the same mental breath. :eyes:

Our country could never have gotten so sick without BOTH parties contributing mightily to it. In the above article, we see some of the Democrats' contribution to the decay process.

[Kanary]

91. Both parties indeed!

"Our country could never have gotten so sick without BOTH parties contributing mightily to it."

*VERY* well put, RichM!

It's going to take a lot of effort for us to reclaim this party!

Kanary

[lastliberalintexas]

6. Good lord!

Why oh why do we put up with these people? Comparing Dennis to Rumsfeld is just evil.

Has anything GOOD actually happened to our party since the formation of the DLC? Let's see, we lost Congress, lost the majority we held in Governorships, and lost a number of state legislatures. I guess we did have Clinton as Pres, but even that is debatable as to whether it was good for the party.

[MuseRider]

7. That is the biggest

pile of horse shit I have ever seen and I just mucked out 4 stalls full of it! These are our guys? God help us, we are done.

[Tinoire]

8. Good-bye DLC. This is now war. Sayonara. Don't count on my vote. n/t

Love always. A Kucinich supporter.

[DogFart]

9. Agreed!

n/m

[redqueen]

15. Hi DogFart

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[diamondsoul]

10. I'll cosign that one. n/t

[lcordero]

16. the DLC is way too entrenched in the Democratic Party

I'm changing my affiliation as soon as the March 2 primaries are over and done with.

[ByRillYAN]

83. I agree!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

11. The DLC...

needs to have a stake driven through it's heart, pronto.

The GOP have the crazy wingers, and it is the responsibility of the remaining sane ones to rise up and give them the boot.

We Democrats need to do the same with the DLC.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Funny how the leading candidates for the nomination (Kerry & Edwards)

are affiliated with the DLC.

[IrateCitizen]

23. So you think that the DLC is right in endorsing this worldview?

Do you also think that all of the "leftists" they have so derided by endorsing such dreams of imperialism and "spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun" will also be expected to shut up and support the Democratic nominee -- if it means just a continuation of things as they are?

I'd appreciate a thoughtful response rather than pithy comments of who belongs to the DLC and who doesn't.

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. I agree with the DLC that

leaving Iraq as soon as possible should not be our goal. We need to clean up the mess there.

[Terwilliger]

32. and take over the middle East?

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. The article said nothing about taking over the Middle East

[Iverson]

38. perhaps you missed this

"The administration has rightly made the democratic transformation of the greater Middle East the grand American project of the 21st century. That job starts in Iraq. If we fail here, our hopes for liberalizing the region will be stillborn."

It was in the article, as well as in the original post of this thread.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. It doesn't talk about 'taking over'

If that is taking over, we have taken over much of the old Warsaw Pact, at they have undergone a democratic transformation.

[Iverson]

51. wishful thinking there

I'm afraid that all the evidence is on the side of those who foresee continued militarism.

The former Warsaw Pact situation resembles today's Middle East not at all.

Desperate hope is romantic, but evidence is your best guide.

[Terwilliger]

53. ooo...financial collapse is akin to someone else "taking over"?

I don't think that's what Marshall has in mind. And you know it.

Funny thing is, we could have had Democratic societies all over the middle East today if it hadn't been for Israel and economic imperialism on the part of our "democracy".

[IrateCitizen]

55. Did we invade and occupy the Warsaw Pact nations?

I must have missed that in my history lessons.

The major difference here is that democracy in Eastern Europe came from WITHIN. That is the only way that democracy can come about -- from WITHIN.

In the Middle East, we are under the false impression that we can impose it from the outside, at the barrel of a gun if necessary. And it's quite clear from recent events, that we are only in favor of democracy if it is the "right kind of democracy". Anything that results in opposition to US policies (even if supported by the majority) is strictly verboten.

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. There were outside pressures that brought this about as well

The financial strain of the cold war witht he West and the Catholic Church had an effect on this.

[IrateCitizen]

64. I guess that's a no.

In which case, it simply confirms my hypothesis that the current situation vis a vis the Middle East has nothing in common with the situation in Eastern Europe around the collapse of the USSR.

I'm also certain that a repressive state taking directions from Moscow had nothing to do with those citizens seeking democratic reform, did it? Nah. It was all because of the efforts of the United States and that it came about.

With regards to the Catholic Church, they may have helped inspire some of the democratic reform -- especially in Poland -- but they've also been a quite outspoken CRITIC of the current US imperial crusade. Yet another instance highlighting the incredible difference between the two scenarios you try to place in parallel.

[Terwilliger]

44. it did, in fact...especially the quote i cited in my post

If you don't think that Marshall means promotion of democratic societies through military mandate, then I want some of what you're smoking.

[redqueen]

49. Tragic.

You're really putting a lot of thought and careful consideration into your support of DLC policies and members, aren't you?

No?

Well maybe you should.

[IrateCitizen]

54. But therein lies the overarching problem, Freddie

You're making the same mistaken assumption as the Mr. Marshall, grown out of good old-fashioned all-American hubris -- the belief that WE can fix anything, that WE can always figure out how, and it's up to US to lead the way!

So long as WE are seen to be the driving force in Iraq, WE are bound to run into failure there. A big part of the problem isn't that the general populace liked Saddam, but that our presence there is that of an occupying army. Our reprisal raids have killed hundreds of civilians, which has just helped the ranks of the insurgents grow. We have moved to privatize everything in Iraq to US corporations (oh, yeah... Uzbek and Turkish businesses are allowed to bid too) while the majority of the Iraqi work force remains unemployed. So long as we deign to control the oil interests in Iraq, we will be seen as exploitative colonialists.

If international involvement is to be brought to bear in this, it must be real. It must be under the complete control of the United Nations -- and we must be willing to pick up most of the tab. If you look beyond the soundbite and at the actual details, that's what DK proposes with his "UN in, US out" idea.

[Nederland]

63. Amazing

...the belief that WE can fix anything, that WE can always figure out how, and it's up to US to lead the way!

That is almost word for word what I actually believe. I guess I'm just a silly optimist. Like Wilson was. And FDR. But who wants to be like those people that had the naivete to believe that the US could actually be a force for good in the world? Much safer to be a disgruntled leftist that believes that the US is evil and has never done anything good in its entire history.

[IrateCitizen]

65. Nice aside, Nederland. I expect better from you.

The problem lies in the belief that we can impose OUR system, OUR values, OUR beliefs on people anywhere around the world, and that they are just supposed to embrace them. Sorry, but the world just doesn't work like that. It never has, and it never will. Part of freedom lies in freedom to feel things out for yourself and chart your own course.

And I don't believe the US to be evil in the least. If you were being intellecutally honest, from the number of times we've exchanged posts on these boards, you wouldn't make such an outright mischaracterization. What I believe is that the US is that the US is the most powerful nation on the earth, and therefore has been seduced by its own hubris in thinking it has the right to tell the rest of the world what to do. That's not evil, that's human failing. Right now, I think it's also being run by extremely selfish and greedy people who would pay any price necessary for the opportunity to rule.

The US has the opportunity to do tremendous good in the world. It's just a shame that it allows its overwhelming self-interest to get in the way. But hey, I guess that's just the "disgruntled leftist" in me talking. :eyes:

You just went down about 10 pegs in my estimation with this post. Have a nice day.

[Nederland]

67. Questions

The problem lies in the belief that we can impose OUR system, OUR values, OUR beliefs on people anywhere around the world, and that they are just supposed to embrace them. Sorry, but the world just doesn't work like that. It never has, and it never will. Part of freedom lies in freedom to feel things out for yourself and chart your own course.

In the above paragraph, what do you mean by the words "system", "values", and "beliefs"? I suspect what you mean by those words is very different from what I meant in my original post and that you an I are closer on this issue than you think.

[IrateCitizen]

70. Answers

What I essentially am referring to is what is trumpeted by American RW nationalists as the "American Way of Life". Consumerism. Violent aversion to anything resembling socialism in any form. "Branding" through said consumerism. Marginalization of any movements who propose alternatives to this system.

I don't think that true democratic process is a bad thing. In fact, it is the best of things. However, I do not believe that the true interest of the United States -- especially in a region as different culturally from us as the Middle East -- is in promoting true democratic process. That democratic process would probably not result in a client state, after all.

And as many prominent economists (notably Joe Stiglitz) have stated, a free-for-all free market will NOT work in an undeveloped economy. By pushing our "system, values and beliefs" on other nations, implicit in that is the demand that they open up their economies to all of our businesses (as is currently being done in Iraq). The end result is disastrous for everyone involved except for our businesses and the few people in that country who get rich off of them.

I would have no problem with the US seeking to encourage democracy throughout the world. In fact, I would be elated. But it cannot claim to do so in Iraq while supporting violent thugs in Uzbekistan and Pakistan, or while moving to covertly subvert democracy in Venezuela, or what have you. Supporting democracy means supporting people finding their own way, and trying to work WITH them rather than expecting the upper hand. We could be doing great things in the world, if we could stop pursuing our self-interest so relentlessly for just a few moments and actually take the concerns of the rest of the world into account.

[Nederland]

74. As I thought

We are closer than you realize.

When I said I share "the belief that WE can fix anything, that WE can always figure out how, and it's up to US to lead the way!" I never said anything about imposing our systems, values and beliefs on other people. That was an assumption that you made and a damn incorrect one.

Quite frankly, I think an apology is in order.

[IrateCitizen]

75. Quite frankly, I think you're out of line

After all, you were the one who imposed on me the label of being a "disgruntled leftist" who thinks that everything America does is evil. Now I'm supposed to apologize for taking exception to that?

I think not.

Then again, you may reapply your labels to me as you read my response to your other post below.

[Nederland]

78. Question

And where exactly did I say that you were a disgruntled leftist?

[IrateCitizen]

81. The implication was quite clear

That is almost word for word what I actually believe. I guess I'm just a silly optimist. Like Wilson was. And FDR. But who wants to be like those people that had the naivete to believe that the US could actually be a force for good in the world? Much safer to be a disgruntled leftist that believes that the US is evil and has never done anything good in its entire history.

Since you were responding directly to me, and disagreeing with a specific statement I made, I can only assume you're inferring that I am that mysterious disgruntled leftist of which you speak.

Whatever. It's all water under the bridge. I'm OK, you're OK -- now, hopefully, we can just get back to disagreeing with each other. ;-)

[redqueen]

66. Things are different now.

Wilson and FDR came before Chile, Grenada, El Salvador, Iraq, etc. etc. etc.

Your strawman about angry leftists and how they hate the US is a bit of right-wing propoganda. I'm saddened and shocked to see it used here. But it does confirm my beliefs that the right-wing conversion of the Dem party is just about done.

[Nederland]

69. Example

Noam Chomsky claims that the US is "the biggest state terrorist country" in the world. That's an example of what I mean by disgruntled leftists that do not believe the US is a force for good in the world. This is not right wing propoganda--it is the truth. There are in fact a very small number of fringe leftists in this country that hold this view, and many of them post here regularly.

[IrateCitizen]

73. If you believe that frequent use of military force is terrorism...

... then that statement is pretty accurate.

Also, you're failing to note an essential component of what Chomsky speaks of. He repeatedly states that the US is not somehow inherently "evil" -- it is just behaving in a manner similar to all other empires in history, with the exception of its acknowledgement that it IS an empire.

When the US funded the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980's, I would view that as terrorism. So, apparently did the world court. Likewise the US involvement in the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1970. And our involvement in the overthrow of Patrice Lumumba in Zaire. Likewise with respect to Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran in 1953.

When viewing the movie "Life and Debt" regarding IMF policies in Jamaica, they discussed the time of Michael Manley's presidency in the 1970's. It was not common during that time for the CIA to drive in trucks around Kingston, passing automatic assault rifles out on the streets, to foment the civil strife that was occurring between anti-Manley forces (supported by the US) and the government.

If things like this AREN'T terrorism, I'd like to know what they are. We can't apply different standards to ourselves that we apply toward others.

If being against exploitation in all of its forms makes me a disgruntled leftist, then I'd have to say I'm proud to be one. At least I know I'm right with my God and fellow man -- and they're more important than some amorphous man-made concept like "country".

[Nederland]

77. I don't define it that way

So apparently that is the source of my disagreement with Chomsky. I would define terrorism as the application of violence against civilians in an effort to create a feeling of unease and anxiety among the larger population. "Frequent use of military force" seems a rather convenient and unorthodox definition delibrately contrived simply to make the claim that the US is the biggest terrorist nation seem true.

[IrateCitizen]

80. Well, the Nicaragua event would seem to fit that description

As would Chile circa 1970 (Nixon: "Make the economy scream"), and Jamaica in the 1970's, and so on.

Use of military force in modern times is just as much about inflicting terror on the larger population as it is about defeating the other side's army. That's the concept of modern "total" war.

That's one of the prime reasons cited by MLK for the need to oppose war as well.

[Nederland]

84. I'll give you those

I thought the debate was directly at the events of today, not 20 or 30 years ago. I think it would be hard to argue for example, that there is no difference between the actions of the US military in Afganistan and Iraq and the actions of Palestinian and Iraqi suicide bombers. In one case, the power in question goes out of its way to minimize civilian casualities and in the other the power goes out of its way to maximize civilian casualities.

Now before you go off and list examples of where the US military hit civilian targets, let me say that I never claimed the US was perfect. I am merely making a comparison. That comparison is that the US engages in a far far more civilian friendly conflict than the terrorist organizations I was referring to above. The proof of that fact is that I can give you many many examples of where the US went out of its way to avoid civilian casualities and I'm betting you can't name a single one where Iraqi or Palestinian insurgents even tried.

[IrateCitizen]

100. I guess I'm looking at "terrorism" in a much broader context

As in using terror in any way to further your self-serving agenda.

To be quite honest, I personally extend "terrorism" to a definition including economic terrorism as well. I also do not see much difference between the use of military force to extend domination over other groups of people for the sole purpose of serving your own self-interest.

In this broader definition, the biggest "terrorist" in the world could be seen to be Western European civilization, with its campaign of dominance, colonialism and subjugation/genocide against peoples all over the rest of the world. In this sense, the United States is really just the latest extension of this pattern.

I'm sure that this doesn't jive with your rather stricter definition of terrorism: In one case, the power in question goes out of its way to minimize civilian casualities and in the other the power goes out of its way to maximize civilian casualities. Yours is, after all, the more widely-held version. But if we look at things through the lens of the recent military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US -- despite these best efforts to engage a more "cilivian-friendly" campaign -- has still killed tens of thousands of people, many of them civilians. By sheer numbers alone, this absolutely pales in comparison to the number of casualties inflicted on Israeli civilians by Palestinian suicide bombers, despite the fact that the suicide bombers are directly targeting civilians and the US military forces are not.

Then, I would also look at the effects of the 12 years of complete (not just military) sanctions against Iraq, coupled with the sustained bombing campaigns and previous use of DU weapons. I also see that as a campaign of terror, because it resulted in the deaths of somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 million people and the near-starvation of countless others -- not to mention the resulting birth defects and such.

It's not that I don't blame Saddam Hussein for these things as well -- but there is plenty of blame to go around in this case, and it does not rest on his shoulders alone.

I could also go into the whole US Treasury/IMF/Third World Debt issue as a matter of indirect terrorism if you like, but I'll try and trim this post down a bit in the meantime.

My feelings on these matters are not those of any kind of "disgruntled leftist." Rather, they are feelings of complete sadness from a very spiritually-oriented person. I know that quoting the Bible isn't the most popular thing on this board, but there's a passage from the book of Mark (12:28-31) that hits the root of where my real issues lie with the vast majority of US foreign policy, and why in invokes such sadness and outrage in me:
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

And when it comes to defining the word "neighbor", there's a quote from the old rabble-rouser Thomas Paine that fits quite well with my beliefs, IMHO:
"My country is the world. My countrymen are all of humanity."

So, while still acknowledging all of the great things in the world that the US is capable of doing, I hope that this helps clear up why I become so saddened and outraged when I see it doing things that are borne only out a relentless pursuit of unenlightened self-interest with little regard to anything else.

[redqueen]

104. "My country is the world.

My countrymen are all of humanity."

A true leader. :)

Thanks for that post. You really said a lot. I haven't been on DU for that long, but I would expect that the economic terrorism issue had been explored at length. Has it?

I know you deferred to Nederland's opinion on whether or not you should expand on that, but for what it's worth, I think that if this subject hasn't been given a thorough airing-out that we should do so soon. This is yet another reason to fear the 'centrist' assault on the Democratic Party. (I put centrist in quotes because in these troubled times, the 'centrists' of the DLC are where the right wing used to be - how did things get so bad?!)

I hope everyone is familiar with Ghana. They followed the IMF's policies and suggestions to the letter. They had success and growth and everything they could hope for. Except it didn't matter. They still are living in impoverished conditions and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US needs to be concerned about why and how this has happened.

[IrateCitizen]

105. I can think of a much better poster child for the IMF

Argentina

They also followed all the IMF's advice, only to see their economy crash spectacularly.

Strangely enough -- during the "Asian financial crisis" or 1997, there was one country that told the IMF to go pound salt. That country was Malaysia.

Can you guess what Pacific Rim country emerged from the event unscathed? I'll give you a hint -- their name begins with "M" and ends with "alaysia". ;-)

Most people don't realize that the US has complete veto power in the IMF due to its position in the world economy. Therefore, the US Treasury essentially controls the IMF. The other industrialized nations theoretically could commit themselves to forming a bloc to counter the US, but they never do. Perhaps it's also because they get to join in the spoils?

Truth is, the developing world sends the industrialized world loan interest repayments on the order of BILLIONS every day. For many nations who have succumbed to IMF dictates, almost one half of their ENTIRE GDP goes to loan repayments. I don't care what kind of foreign aid you give in a situation like that -- it is the equivalent of putting a band aid on gangrene.

And then, there's the US global "military footprint". No other nation comes anywhere close to keeping troops in as many nations around the world as we do. At last count, the "official" total was somewhere well over 150 countries with US military personnel. I'm certain that's nowhere near the actuality -- and the official tally is also rising. This is the "muscle" that is used to back up the racketeers of the world financial industry. Smedley Butler even recognized this in his famous War is a Racket speech, all the way back in the 1930's.

Why else do you think that the US and EU are trying so desparately to get developing nations to open up their financial markets to speculative capital flows through the WTO? Why do you think they are resisting so heavily? The Asian crisis of 1997 showed the destructive effects of large-scale capital flight (brought on by foreign currency speculation in markets not at all ready for it), but still the global North still keeps on pushing the same twisted agenda while at the same time touting the benefits of "globalization" to the world's poor. Nor do they take serious efforts to forgive the debt of Third World Nations, even though the vast majority of it was either forced on them by the IMF or taken by despotic tyrants who used it for self-enrichment.

And who are the first to suffer for these kinds of policies? It isn't the wealthy few, who are not dependent on economic growth for their very survival. They can ride it out just fine -- and quite often come out ahead. It also isn't really the middle class, even though they usually see their living standards decline sharply in such crises. It is the poorest of the poor -- the people who are eeking out an existence on $2 per day. According to my personal beliefs, knowingly inflicting such harm on these people fits quite nicely in the definition of "terrorism" -- because taking away a person's very ability to survive and leaving them to waste away is possibly more heartless and wicked than just killing them outright.

What was it that Jesus said? "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do also to me."? By that standard, we're not doing too damned well -- even as some of our fellow Americans affirm their belief in America as a "Christian nation". :puke:

[redqueen]

115. Yes, Argentina got hit hard

However as I understood it, even the upper middle class got socked with a wake-up call. IIRC, they lost all their deposits, after the IMF downgraded their rating, and foreign investors stopped underwriting their debt. I may have reeeeeeally messed up on the lingo there, but if I'm not mistaken that's the gist of it.

Overnight they were left with nothing, and these formerly 'wealthy' citizens, in their helplessness, would go to the bank with spoons, and beat on the walls and doors of the bank, trying to get some money.

Actually now that I think back I remember that this was temporary, and after a spell the banks started giving out small amounts to the account holders.

Sad sad sad.

However, being a fan of the 'bright side' (:)), I also remember this ushered in a return to barter among the truly destitute that you referred to. There is a man who even led the effort to build co-ops where people could trade wares for food.

[no name no slogan]

85. Allende WAS overthrown with the help of the CIA

There was a book published last year ("The Pinochet Files", IIRC) that detailed the specific involvement of the CIA in the overthrow of the democratically-elected popular front government of Salvador Allende.

The CIA gave weapons and money to right-wing elements in the military and government, with the assistance of US DIPLOMATS serving at the US Embassy in Santiago.

As a matter of fact, the assassination of General Rene Schneider (the non-political head of Chile's armed forces) was carried out with "grease guns" that were smuggled into Chile via a "diplomatic pouch" at the US Embassy-- one that is EXEMPT from customs inspection by Chilean officials.

The Nixon administration, along with its corporate allies ITT, Pepsi and various copper-mining companies, played a HUGE ROLE in overthrowing the Allende government. So big a role, in fact, that Henry Kissenger is a wanted man in many countries because of his actions in that time.

I would certainly say that the US has played a MAJOR role in exporting state-sponsored terror in the last century. One that makes Iran's or Syria's efforts pale in comparison.

[Nederland]

86. Response

If you want to compare two things, you need to talk about both of them, not just one. You list a bunch of stuff the US did in Chile. Fine. Now go ahead and list all the terrorist shit that Syria amd Iran have pulled in the last thirty years. Then we will compare them.

THAT'S how you compare two things.

[no name no slogan]

89. There's not enough room to list them all

I'm not going to do your research: you know quite well that the US has used its power and influence to destabilize many democratically-elected governments because they either 1) threatened US control/influence in the region or 2) threatened corporate interests in the country/region.

For comparison's sake, I'll list a few glaring examples:

Indonesia, 1965
The US supported Gen. Suharto's overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Sukarno in Indonesia. Suharto's reign of terror resulted in the deaths of at least one million Indonesians. Furthermore, Suharto's illegal invasion of East Timor in 1975 resulted in at least 300,000 deaths (out of a population of 700,000).

Vietnam, 1957-1975
We all know this one. The US, unhappy with the democratic elections that resulted in Ho Chi Minh's election, set up South Vietnam as a client state. Three million dead Vietnamese later, and the US left.

Guatemala, 1956
The overthrow of the democratically-elected Arbenz government by CIA-trained insurgents led to a long and drawn-out civil war that lasted until 1996. Estimates of the dead and "disappeared" top the one million mark.

Cambodia, 1970-1975
The US bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam war destabilized the country and led directly to the Khmer Rouge taking over neighboring Cambodia in 1975. At least three million Cambodians died in their reign of terror that only ended in 1979 when the Vietnamese invaded.

Chile, 1970-1989
The US played a direct role in the overthrow of the Allende regime, and backed the Pinochet dictatorship all through its reign of terror. At least 7,000 people were killed by Pinochet, and several thousand more were "disappeared" by his security forces.

These are just a few of the MAJOR examples. I've not even cited Iran, Iraq, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Argentina, Colombia, Zaire, Angola, and many others simply because I can't cite the details of the top of my head.

Now, compare that to whatever terrorism Iran has sponsored, or even the Syrian oppression of the Lebanese. Even both of these COMBINED pale in comparison to what the US has done.

[Nederland]

92. You totally missed my point

My point was that if you wish to compare the acts of terrorism committed by the US to the acts of terrorism committed by other nations like Iran and Syria you have to provide a complete list of BOTH, not just US transgressions. You responded by simply listing more US transgressions. You are the one making the claim that the US is the most terrorist nation, therefore it is your responsibility to come up with the facts that back up that claim. Simply listing the actions of one country and then claiming they are the worst offender proves nothing more than they fact that you don't understand what it means to compare things.

[redqueen]

102. A question for you.

Why do you care so much about the fact that we're not as bad as the other criminals? Is it not a valid desire to not be a criminal nation?

Why keep skirting that issue? We are a beacon to the free world, and we comfort ourselves by saying, 'well hey, at least we're not as bad as they are!' What utter nonsense.

The desire to see this country live up to the standards it gives lip service to is a valid one, and fighting to make that true America more of a reality than a dream is the most noble fight I can think of.

Think of the good we could do if we didn't have to excuse ourselves for Kissinger's absolute evil, and instead had focused that energy and monetary power on truly just causes?

Those of us who wish to see America become better than she has been do not hate her as she is -- we just believe that stagnation kills, and regression into even worse behavior is unacceptable. That's where we are now -- alienating allies and waging illegal wars for empire -- and we got here with the help of centrists.

[IrateCitizen]

103. Redqueen, please read my post in response to Nederland...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=274595#280455

The end of it might go some way to presenting an alternative view outside of the game of "degrees of guilt" that it is so easy (and non-productive) to be sucked into.

[charlie]

106. Contrasting our less than noble actions

with other countries is only half the story, anyway. It's the near inevitability of blowback and future enemies that result from our "interventions", sold under the high-minded rhetoric of "freedom" and "stability" that's really depressing. We install a Somoza, we wind up battling Sandinistas, we install a Pahlavi, we deal with a Khomeni. We cause untold suffering for generations of third worlders, and unnecessarily spill the blood of young US soldiers. And for what? Not for true national security, but for the likes of United Fruit and Standard Oil.

And here we are in Iraq, selling "liberation." And who did Bush and Wolfowitz float up as the US's Iraqi leader-in-waiting? Chalabi, whose first actions after deplaning in country (for the first time in what, 28 years?) was acting like a Mafia chieftan, dispatching thugs to commandeer cars and homes for his pleasure. Same as it ever was, sowing the seeds for Gulf War III.

One other thing that really sticks in my craw -- people who conflate the actions of the likes of Kissinger and the Dulles bros with "America." It ain't no how, no way dishonorable to decry the actions of administrations who soil America's good name with their sociopathic predations.

[redqueen]

116. I agree except one tiny point

It's hard to decry Kissinger's evils being linked to America at the root, since to this very day, we as a country respect and defend him.

Just sayin.

[charlie]

118. Yeah, that's true

I was just grousing about people who use the hackneyed "sure, blame America first" and "blame America only" retorts to criticisms of policy. It's tiresome to have genuine concerns for the country (and the world!) dismissed, left unexamined and undebated, as mere hatred of America. Bush isn't America. Nor is Perle. Or Kissinger. Or McNamara, Brzezinski, etc...

[Nederland]

107. Here's Why

Why do you care so much about the fact that we're not as bad as the other criminals?

Simple. Because its the truth. Does the truth not matter?

[IrateCitizen]

108. Is criminality acceptable in certain degrees?

Or should we try to hold ourselves to the same standards that we prescribe to others?

"I will never apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are."
Former President George H. W. Bush, responding to questions regarding the accidental shooting down of an Iranian civilian jet liner by a US warship, resulting in the deaths of over 250 civilians.

"We will act multilaterally when we can, and unilaterally when we must."
Former Sec. of State Madeline Albright

"When asked on US television if she thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.""
John Pilger, "Squeezed to Death", Guardian, March 4, 2000

"If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.'
Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright


One of the first measures of a true leader is not hubris, but humility. The same rules apply to nations as they do to human beings, in this sense.

[Nederland]

109. No

But when someone claims that the US is "the most terrorist nation in the world" I'm going to dispute it.

[IrateCitizen]

110. Response

Please see my Post #100, above.

[Nederland]

112. Response

I trust you are familiar with Socrates story of the Ring of Gyges, but for those who are not, I'll do a brief summary.

In Book two of Plato's The Republic Socrates is discussing the true nature of morality. He tells the story of the Ring of Gyges--a magical ring which enables the wearer to completely escape detection and do whatever they wish without fear of ever being caught. A truly just person, Socrates claims, is one whose behavior would not change when coming into possession of the Ring of Gyges. A person who does not commit murder solely because they fear the consequences of getting caught is not a truly moral person. A truly moral person does not commit murder for no other reason than they believe it to be wrong. A truly moral person demonstrates enormous restraint.

I believe it is appropriate to apply this idea when we are trying to make a judgment as to how "moral" a nation is. Moral judgments of nations cannot be made in the simplistic bean counter fashion as you have done. One also needs to take into account motivation and opportunity. To claim, for example, that the nation of Samoa is the most moral nation on the planet on the basis that Samoa has never invaded another country is questionable. Samoa lacks the resources to invade another country, so who knows how it would behave if they had the opportunity.

If we agree that considering what capability a nation has makes a difference in our moral judgment of that nation, the US looks very different than you have portrayed. I have little doubt, for example, that if Syria were in possession of the type of weaponry that the United States possesses the state of Israel would not exist today. Tel Aviv would have been reduced to radioactive slag long ago. Can we therefore say that the US is a more moral nation than Syria? Absolutely.

[IrateCitizen]

113. I look at it from a different perspective, Nederland.

You say that it is proof that the US is more moral than Syria. I would say that it may show that Syria is, as far as nations go, more immoral than the US -- but that fact still does not come close to somehow making the US "moral".

To go back to Chomsky, whom I believe you may misinterpret is broader context -- the natural state of ALL nation-states is immorality. They are all institutions created by men that hold enormous power. Therefore, quite often, those attracted to that power are also the least equipped, morally-speaking, to wield it.

It could be argued that it was our semblance of at least some sort of democratic systems that put restraint on our behaviors over the years. But as the wheels come off on that, look for things to get only worse in the future.

By the standards you apply, I could say that Canada is a much more moral nation than the United States. But I won't.

[Nederland]

114. Not really

In fact, I'm not sure we are arguing about much at all. To review:

You say that it is proof that the US is more moral than Syria. I would say that it may show that Syria is, as far as nations go, more immoral than the US -- but that fact still does not come close to somehow making the US "moral".

Agreed. I never claimed the US was moral, I merely claim the US is no where near the worst.

To go back to Chomsky, whom I believe you may misinterpret is broader context -- the natural state of ALL nation-states is immorality. They are all institutions created by men that hold enormous power. Therefore, quite often, those attracted to that power are also the least equipped, morally-speaking, to wield it.

Agreed. Power corrupts.

It could be argued that it was our semblance of at least some sort of democratic systems that put restraint on our behaviors over the years. But as the wheels come off on that, look for things to get only worse in the future.

Agreed. The US needs to have free and fair elections.

By the standards you apply, I could say that Canada is a much more moral nation than the United States. But I won't.

Agreed. Canada is lovely, but rather cold this time of year.

[redqueen]

117. One itty bitty comment

On morality and who is the worst / best -- is it not fair to say that intentions matter only in relation to how badly that the action taken affects others, in addition to oneself? I think this is how manslaughter cases are given different classifications. Depending on how severe the 'unintended' consequences were, the perp is punished accordingly.

Looked at in this way, it could be argued that we are indeed the worst terrorist nation in existence today. No matter our intentions in all our actions, the cost in human lives has been more immense than any terrorist group could hope to attain in their wildest dreams.

I could launch into a tirade about the transparent fraudulence of our oh-so-noble intentions, as well, but you're certainly aware of the claims of Smedley Butler and others who are more suspicious than you about the goals of the US, so you either disagree with or dismiss such views. However you must understand that some people do not see the actions of the US in Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, etc. to be intended for any other reason than self-interest. We were not helping the people of Chile, by any means.

So, even if you agree that intentions should counterbalance the fallout, it is still IMO not unreasonable to label the US as the #1 terrorist nation.

Just MHO, of course. :)

[paulk]

35. You shouldn't make the assumption

that just because an article is on the DLC website all DLC members agree with it.

[Terwilliger]

46. same with Democrats in general

but that's why we should find out just what a Democrat is...and just what a Democrat who identifies with the DLC is

[Hell Hath No Fury]

52. Yes it is interesting...

and I don't plan on voting for either of them in the primary. :)

Winning an election is one thing -- potentially giving up the very values that make the party is entirely another thing, and that is what the leadership of the DLC is asking Dems to do.

[Tinoire]

27. Hand me a stake. Please. Please let me drive one through! n/t

[Fleshdancer]

12. Disgusting

How absurd does this group have to get before we realize they do more harm than good to our Party?

[rucky]

33. It's kinda flattering to DK, tho

shows the threat he must pose for the DLC-ers to write about him this way.

[Iverson]

40. Thus the necessity of silencing him.

You may have noticed the New York Times, echoed by conservative and some other voices here on DU, asserting that Kucinich no longer deserves his place in the debates.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. Not only that

Today they have once again written two pages of articles about the upcoming primary season without mentioning his name.

[redqueen]

60. I think it's fantastic

That despite the majority of the mainstream media's blackout or ridicule only policy, that he's increasing in the polls, that he's still pulling in cash from his supporters, and that he still maintains his can-do spirit.

I love this guy. :loveya:

[LWolf]

98. Me, too.

On all accounts.

That the DLC has him in their sights says volumes:

1. He is not as fringe as people think.

2. He is more electable than people think.

3. He is a credible threat to the status quo.

That people are still donating, working for him, and voting for him after the blackout or ridicule treatment says volumes.

Here's a clear message to the DLC:

WE'RE NOT GOING AWAY. GET USED TO IT. ITS TIME TO FISH OR CUT BAIT; ACKNOWLEDGE OUR LEGITIMACY AS MEMBERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, OR ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO SEND US ELSEWHERE.

[Mairead]

41. Yes - a backhanded compliment for sure.

Which says that we're making inroads despite the spin and the blackout.

[Armstead]

13. Not of dime's worth of difference.....

between the DLC and the Rove machine.

Except the Rove machine is actually politically effective.

[MuseRider]

14. Well said. n/t

[no name no slogan]

17. I agree.

Maybe I should sell myself out to the DLC. That way I'll get plenty of Corpocrat blood money!

FCUK PRINCIPLES! FCUK INNOCENT LIVES!!! GIMMEE MONEY!!!!

If the DLC still controls this party after the convention, it's sayonara sweeties.

[charlie]

25. Heh

Ol' Will got himself an attaboy from the RNC last month:

http://www.rnc.org/news/read.aspx?ID=3782

In a few years, he'll be where past DLC chairman Steinhardt is now -- sending checks to Bush/Cheney and enthusing about what a straight-shootin' swell president Dubya is.

[Terwilliger]

31. That phrase sounds familiar

looks like he is right again!

[IndianaGreen]

39. Not true! The DLC prefers to use KY-Jelly before it screws us

Lubrication is the only difference between the DLC and the GOP.

[Mairead]

42. mwahahahahah

Beautiful!

[lcordero]

95. A very, very, very small smidgen of KY-Jelly mind you

[Iverson]

19. What Mr. Marshall doesn't seem to realize ...

He is endorsing a world view that has shown its profound contempt for the workings of democracy, respecting only power and only when it belongs to a very particular privileged cohort.

What he seems to have either missed or dismissed is that the US' credibility has gone down the toilet with the rest of the world. This damage will not be undone soon. Perhaps an empire can dismiss as penis envy the critiques of the non-empire, but I cannot recommend it as a civilized alternative to our republic's experiment in government by the consent of the governed.

Technocratic differences with Rumsfeld over how best to implement empire are meaningless when compared to principled differences over our identity as empire at all. Mr. Marshall's writing will succeed only to the extent that we abandon our critical faculties or else to the extent that his views can be forcibly imposed upon us.

[IndianaGreen]

20. Take your ABB loyalty oath

before the Thought Police show up and haul you away!

:scared:

[Iverson]

21. I will wave good-bye to the wife and kids first.

I have no illusions about where I am welcome. Or not many.

:toast:

[MadHound]

22. And thus we see the Democratic party progress one step further

On the road to becoming Republicrats(or Demicans). The DLC is systematically weeding out any and all progressive voices in the party in their mad lust for corporate cash and power. God forbid that a man who is the conscience of the Democratic Party continue to speak out against the very policies that the DLC and their corporate masters wish to see pushed through. DK isn't a real threat for getting the nomination, but apparently any voice of dissent must be smeared and silenced at once lest it upset the herd. If FDR were to come back today, the Dem leadership would smear him as a socialist and worse. It is simply too pathetic.

Sheesh, and people wonder why I've gone Green.

[camero]

24. I'm starting to think

That the DLC/DNC and PNAC are two sides of the same coin.

[Mairead]

43. "The {DNC & RNC} are two wings of the same bird of prey" (Buchanan)

Says it all really.

[chocolateeater]

26. Marshall can't be serious!

Is he really buying the "You can spread democracy with war" argument? If he is, it's worse than I thought. And that was pretty bad.
As for comparing Rumsfeld with Kucinich, I can't even begin to count the ways that is wrong.:scared:

[Terwilliger]

29. OK folks...if this is a Democrat...I AM NOT!

The administration has rightly made the democratic transformation of the greater Middle East the grand American project of the 21st century.

Fuck you! You need to pick up the gun your damned self or shut the fuck up!!!

[indigo32]

50. well said...

"Fuck you! You need to pick up the gun your damned self or shut the fuck up!!!"

my sentiments exactly

[PVnRT]

30. Ugh

More evidence that the DLC does not want the Democrats to be a serious opposition party.

[CWebster]

34. Isn't kerry proposing to increase our military forces?

Just move along, don't pay that any mind... ABB! Line up for ABB! Only direct your eyes here - ABB! And you see we have made the selection of what is most "electible" for you based on Republican criteria of a strong military emphasis as a measure of what is "presidential". Now, everyone in line, ABB!

[redqueen]

45. Yes, Kerry wants two more divisions

Which means a draft, folks. Women too.

Nowhere near enough people are even re-enlisting, let alone signing up.

[Meldread]

37. I hate to say it...

...the DLC has already crossed the line. They've smeared Dean now they are going after Kucinich. I'm getting to the point where I simply will not vote for anyone who supports the DLC.

I won't change my party affiliation; I will just work around the DLC.

[corporatewhore]

47. This peice is worthy of Karl

[ulysses]

56. not really taken aback, Chris.

With Dean no longer the frontrunner, From and Marshall are free to swing away at Kucinich. I'll grant you that the comparison to Rumsfeld is truly breathtaking in its rank stupidity, but I'd have been surprised if they'd said nothing about his campaign.

I was starting to seriously consider switching candidates - not that it matters, being in Georgia - and this could well help make up my mind.

[IrateCitizen]

58. Hey uly, come on over and join the ranks of Kucitizens!!!

It don't cost nothin' -- unless you want to give, of course. And it can only help pull the party a little shade further toward progressive populism.

[ulysses]

59. I'm sort of stalking the thing.

I'm going to at least wait for Wisconsin, I think - if Dean can stage any kind of a comeback, I'll stick with my hand a while longer. Maybe. Hell, I don't know. I just remembered in the last week that my support for Dean over DK is predicated on Dean having an actual shot at the thing, and if he's going down (and he may not - I haven't gotten out the sackcloth and ashes yet ;-) ) then there's not much point in going down in flames if it's not behind the candidate with whom I most agree.

[Wetzelbill]

62. I second that

[hedda_foil]

68. Our charming fellow traveller Will Marshall is fully signed on w/ PNAC

He started signing their letters as soon as the war started. Before that he was just a member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq -- an acknowledged PNAC front organization.

[Tinoire]

79. Here's some back-up info. Marshall PNAC letters on Iraq

Testimony of
William Kristol
Chairman, Project for the New American Century
Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
April 8, 2003

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to testify once again before this august committee, on such an important and timely subject: the future of NATO. The Project for the New American Century, which I chair, has always supported an American foreign policy that is grounded on strong alliance ties. Indeed, in the Project’s founding “Statement of Principles”— found at: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm — we argued that strengthening those ties was one of four essential tasks before us if we were to correct the drift we perceived as existing in American foreign policy.

More concretely, we supported the first post-Cold War enlargement of NATO. And we support the pending one. I am pleased that we are so close to seeing that bipartisan vision become reality. And just recently, the Project helped organize two bipartisan statements proposing a key role for NATO in post-Saddam Iraq. (Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to submit the two statements for the record. They can also be found at: http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm.)

<snip>


Statement on Post-War Iraq
March 19, 2003

Although some of us have disagreed with the administration's handling of Iraq policy and others of us have agreed with it, we all join in supporting the military intervention in Iraq. The aim of UNSC Resolution 1441 was to give the Iraqi government a "final opportunity" to comply with all UN resolutions going back 12 years. The Iraqi government has demonstrably not complied. It is
now time to act to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
The removal of the present Iraqi regime from power will lay the foundation for achieving three vital goals: disarming Iraq of all its weapons of mass destruction stocks and production capabilities; establishing a peaceful, stable, democratic government in Iraq; and contributing to the democratic development of the wider Middle East.
To enhance the prospects of success, American efforts in the weeks, months, and years ahead must be guided by the following principles:

Regime change is not an end in itself but a means to an end - the establishment of a peaceful, stable, united, prosperous, and democratic Iraq free of all weapons of mass destruction. We must help build an Iraq that is governed by a pluralistic system representative of all Iraqis and that is fully committed to upholding the rule of law, the rights of all its citizens, and the betterment of all its people. The Iraqi people committed to a democratic future must be integrally involved in this process in order for it to succeed. Such an Iraq will be a force for regional stability rather than conflict and participate in the democratic development of the region.

The process of disarming, stabilizing, rebuilding, reforming, preserving the unity of, and ultimately democratizing Iraq will require a significant investment of American leadership, ime, energy, and resources, as well as important assistance from American allies and the international community. Everyone - those who have joined our coalition, those who have stood aside, those who opposed military action, and, most of all, the Iraqi people and their neighbors - must understand that we are committed to the rebuilding of Iraq and will provide the necessary resources and will remain for as long as it takes. Any early fixation on exit strategies and departure deadlines will undercut American credibility and
greatly diminish the prospects for success.

The United States military will necessarily bear much of the initial burden of maintaining stability in Iraq, securing its territorial integrity, finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction, and supporting efforts to deliver humanitarian assistance to those most in need. For the next year or more, U.S and coalition troops will have to comprise the bulk f the total international military presence in Iraq. But as the security situation permits, authority should transfer to civilian agencies, and to representatives of the Iraqi people themselves. Much of the long-term security presence, as well as the resources for
reconstruction, will have to come from our allies in Europe and elsewhere - suggesting the importance of involving the NATO Alliance and other international institutions early in any planning and implementation of the post-conflict stage.

American leadership - and the long-term commitment of American resources and energies - is essential, therefore, but the extraordinary demands of the effort make international support, cooperation, and participation a requirement for success. And just as a stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq is in the region's and the world's interest, it is important that the American-led stabilization and rebuilding effort gain the support and full involvement of key international organizations in the work of rebuilding Iraq.

The successful disarming, rebuilding, and democratic reform of Iraq can contribute decisively to the democratization of the wider Middle East. This is an objective of overriding strategic importance to the United States, as it is to the rest of the international community - and its achievement will require an investment and commitment commensurate with that. We offer our full support to the President and Congress to accomplish these vitally important goals.

Ronald Asmus
Max Boot
Frank Carlucci
Eliot Cohen
Ivo H. Daalder
Thomas Donnelly
Peter Galbraith
Jeffrey Gedmin
Robert S. Gelbard
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Charles Hill
Martin S.Indyk
Bruce P. Jackson
Robert Kagan
Craig Kennedy
William Kristol
Tod Lindberg
Will Marshall
Joshua Muravchik
Danielle Pletka
Dennis Ross
Randy Scheunemann
Gary Schmitt
Walter Slocombe
James B. Steinberg
R. James Woolsey

((This statement found at: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903.htm)

Second Statement on Post-War Iraq
March 28, 2003

We write in strong support of efforts by Prime Minister Tony Blair to "get America and Europe working again together as partners and not as rivals." While some seem determined to create an ever deeper divide between the United States and Europe, and others seem indifferent to the long-term survival of the transatlantic partnership, we believe it is essential, even in the midst of war, to begin building a new era of transatlantic cooperation.

The place to begin is post-war Iraq. There should be no question of our common determination to help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful, stable, united, prosperous, and democratic Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction. We must help build an Iraq that is governed by a pluralistic system representative of all Iraqis and fully committed to the rule of law, the rights of all its citizens, and the betterment of all its people. Such an Iraq will be a force for regional stability rather than conflict and participate in the democratic development of the region.

The Iraqi people committed to a democratic future must be fully involved in this process in order for it to succeed. Consistent with security requirements, our goal should be to progressively transfer authority as soon as possible to enable Iraqis to control their own destiny. Millions of Iraqis are untainted by service to the Ba'athist dictatorship and are committed to the establishment of democratic institutions. It is these Iraqis - not Americans, Europeans or international bureaucrats - who should make political and economic decisions on behalf of Iraq. Building a stable, peaceful and democratic Iraq is an immense task. It must be a cooperative effort that involves international organizations - UN relief agencies, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other appropriate bodies - that can contribute the talent and resources necessary for success. It is therefore essential that these organizations be involved in planning now to ensure timely allocation of resources.

Of particular concern, the effort to rebuild Iraq should strengthen, not weaken transatlantic ties. The most important transatlantic institution is NATO, and the Alliance should assume a prominent role in post-war Iraq. Given NATO's capabilities and expertise, it should become integrally involved as soon as possible in the post-war effort. In particular, NATO should actively support efforts to secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and production facilities (a task that should unite the United States, Canada and all European allies committed to peace and non-proliferation), ensure peace and stability are maintained in postwar Iraq, and assist in the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure and the delivery of humanitarian relief. The Atlantic Alliance has pledged to confront the new threats of the 21st century. No current challenge is more important than that of building a peaceful, unified and democratic Iraq without weapons of mass destruction on NATO's own borders.

Administration of post-war Iraq should from the beginning include not only Americans but officials from those countries committed to our goals in Iraq. Bringing different nationalities into the administrative organization is important because it allows us to draw on the expertise others have acquired from their own previous peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts. It will also facilitate closer and more effective ties between the security forces in post-war Iraq and those charged with administrating the political and economic rebuilding of Iraq. International support and participation in the post-Iraq effort would be much easier to achieve if the UN Security Council were to endorse such efforts. The United States should therefore seek passage of a Security Council resolution that endorses the establishment of a civilian administration in Iraq, authorizes the participation of UN relief and reconstruction agencies, welcomes the deployment of a security and stabilization force by NATO allies, and lifts all economic sanctions imposed following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.


Gordon Adams
Ron Asmus
Max Boot
Frank Carlucci
Eliot Cohen
Ivo H. Daalder
James Dobbins
Thomas Donnelly
Lee Feinstein
Peter Galbraith
Robert S. Gelbard
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Philip Gordon
Charles Hill
Martin S. Indyk
Bruce P. Jackson
Robert Kagan Craig Kennedy
William Kristol
Tod Lindberg
James Lindsay
Will Marshall
Christopher Makins
Joshua Muravchik
Michael O'Hanlon
Danielle Pletka
Dennis Ross
Randy Scheunemann
Gary Schmitt
Helmut Sonnenfeldt
James B. Steinberg

((This statement found at http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-032803.htm ))


http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2003/KristolTestimont030408.pdf

[dawgman]

71. Well, on Saturday I am going to caucus for DK and if he doesn't win

I will vote green this fall.

[parasim]

72. Will Marshall a Kerry advisor?

Maybe not a paid advisor, but still...

http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=195

[Hell Hath No Fury]

94. Uh oh...

"...But perhaps the clearest indications that Kerry does consider himself the front-runner are two people who, according to Roll Call, are currently advising the Massachusetts senator: Will Marshall and Ed Kilgore, of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council, respectively. ...snip...

OF COURSE: It's unclear from the Roll Call list whether the two are actually paid advisers. It's possible that Kerry is touting his association with people like Marshall and Kilgore simply to signal to rivals that he has support from all corners of the Democratic Party, and that he's not actually paying them to advise him at this point."

Ugh.

[Darranar]

76. This is disgusting.

[revcarol]

82. Hear the deafening chorus of the other candidates condemning

this garbage?? NO??!!

Hear Terry McAuliffe chastizing the DLC for this outrage?? NO??!!

Guess we know now who supports the DLC and its imperialistic anti-labor agenda!!

[Iverson]

87. kick for the outrage

kick!

[bloom]

88. The DLC did this to Dean, also

They wouldn't want anyone to get "uppity" or anything...... :mad:

[w4rma]

93. So the DLC leadership has moved their target from Dean to Kucinich. (n/t)

[stickdog]

96. stickdog -- Kucinich & DLC cut from same cloth (nt)

[lcordero]

97. kick

[corporatewhore]

99. The DLC canKISS MY LEFTIST ASS

[IrateCitizen]

101. Second-day, lunchtime KICK!

:kick:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

111. D-emocratic L-eague of C-ollaborators

Good lord. And, they still deny being the "moderate" wing of the repugly party.

[chocolateeater]

119. You mean the "Republican wing of the Democratic Party"?

Truer words were never spoken.:shrug:

[corporatewhore]

120. or the Democratic Wealiship Council