Skip to main content

View Diary: PNAC Co-Founder Endorses Dems in '08 (221 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh cmon (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandy on Signal, boofdah

    Republicans are obviously more Pnaciy than Dems.. no questions asked, hands down.

    Maybe its because Republicans are so ineffective? I really do not think once Dems control Congress/WH we will see some sort of PNAC resurgence.

    •  They may be so (12+ / 0-)

      But the fact is that PNAC couldn't care that much about domestic policy. It's about who's in power and who will advance their agenda on foreign issues. Since the GOP has total control right now, they're obviously allied with them. However, they'd have to be stupidd if they don't think Democrats may make a comeback soon. And there are people who will advance their foreign policy, specifically the milquetoast Democrats who get so much face time as 'representatives' of our party. They would have plenty of access should Dems win...well, if the 'right' type of Dem wins.

      -7.00, -8.87
      "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

      by PsiFighter37 on Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:44:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's nothing milquetoasty about Dem hawks (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grrr, Warren Terrer, trashablanca, DBunn

        The Democratic Party has always had a hawkish wing.  The infamous '68 Democratic convention was a battle between doves and hawks.  When dovish George McGovern defeated hawkish Scoop Jackson (among others) for the '72 nomination, many Scoop Jackson Democrats abandoned the party for Nixon. Many were back when Carter ran essentially as a hawk in '76.  And so it goes.

        Progressives make a terrible mistake misunderstanding the hawkish wing of the Democratic Party as spineless progressives. They aren't. They are as committed to a bloated military and a shoot-first-ask-questions-later foreign policy as the GOP is.

        First they came for the human-animal hybrids...

        by GreenSooner on Mon May 29, 2006 at 07:50:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Want to bet? (9+ / 0-)

      Go see how much AIPAC and PNAC contribute to Dems, your Democratic and Republican official are in their pocket

      http://www.wrmea.com/...

      •  Scary stuff... (7+ / 0-)

        When YK is over, let's have a real discussion about the Project for a New American Century.  It might help us with midterm activities.

        I keep trying to read that paper that they wrote in 2000, but I just fall asleep because it's beyond my wildest dreams.  They want to create a perpetual state of war and I want to create a FOREVER state of PEACE and PROSPERITY!

        Sigh... good night and sweet dreams!

        •  A discussion here is good... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cotterperson, bluewolverine, Wary

          I do believe that a discussion about the PNAC and how to combat them is something that is in dire need.

          I'm not sure how much it will help in the midterms, though.  Perhaps it could help in predicting neoconservative responses and getting out in front of issues before they can frame the debate.

          However, I think if progressives decided to start talking about PNAC to people who are too unfamiliar with the group, they would be viewed as wild-eyed conspiracy theorists.  It is much better if we can figure out a way to fight this in the media so that people who are unfamiliar with the group can then come to the conclusions "on their own".  It is much more convincing and would lead to more discussion on the subject with them and their friends.

          (-10.00, -9.54) Volunteer for John Laesch for Congress (IL-14)

          by Jared Lash on Mon May 29, 2006 at 12:47:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How about ignoring (3+ / 0-)

            PNAC altogether and attempting to convince voters that the most effective and least costly way to fight terrorism is to treat those who use terror to advance a political aim as simple criminals who should be treated thus?  Think Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber.

            Utilizing police tactics, both domestically and internationally, clearing the way for every level of police force - from the local constabulary to Interpol - to work together to hunt down bombers and conspirators, would result in far more of these extremists being brought to justice than using the military to invade whole countries.  Think tactics used to find, arrest and bring to trial those responsible for the Madrid and London bombings.

            That tack seems far more desirable, and easier, than engaging American voters in a philosophical discussion of foreign policy ala PNAC.  Considering how well military intervention has worked over the past three years, it shouldn't be difficult to convince people in this country to try something different.  And I certainly wouldn't allow the PNAC militarists to label international police cooperation "isolationist."

            (-5.25, -7.95) "Self-respect is a question of recognizing that anything worth having has a price." - Joan Didion

            by SueDe on Mon May 29, 2006 at 04:32:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think you can ignore them (4+ / 0-)

              The problem is that PNAC is a cancer that has invaded the entire power structure.  As long as PNACists hold positions of power and influence America will continue down the road to imperialism no matter what "the people" want.  There's money involved here too.  PNACists funnel billions to defense contractors and Israel and will always have the support of these powerful lobbies.

              You will know that America has truly turned a corner not when a Democrat sits in the White House (though that might be a start) but when everyone associated with PNAC is flipping burgers (or on trial in the Hague).  A purge of these people from the corridors of power has got to be priority #1 for any Democrat.  This is another of the many reasons not to support HRC, by the way.

              Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy."

              by Event Horizon on Mon May 29, 2006 at 06:58:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  How about articulating a clear alternative? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Warren Terrer, DBunn, Heterodoxie

              Rather than merely running against PNAC and/or the Bush Administration, shouldn't an opposition party offer a clear foreign policy alternative?  

              The problem the Democrats face is that between the deep commitment of many Dems to militarist foreign policy and the fears of many others that any opposition to militarism will be seen as a sign of weakness, the party is essentially incapable of projecting a clear, alternative vision of America's place in the world.

              First they came for the human-animal hybrids...

              by GreenSooner on Mon May 29, 2006 at 07:54:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Alternative: (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bablhous, bluewolverine, Heterodoxie

                Reject the "long war" thinking. Currently the Quadrennial Defense Review is driving foreign policy, and it built on the "long war" thinking of PNAC. That is very dangerous.

                The QDR, which determines this country's "strategic framework" must be revised to reflect a new US posture. We need a strategic framework not built on threats, and the eventual (so PNAC supposes) long war ending in China. We need a foreign policy built on economic cooperation, and geared toward world peace. That is directly the opposite of the aims of the current QDR.

                It should come as no surprise that the QDR economically benefits the fat cats of the MIC. They want more bases, and what they sell guarentees a more aggresive U.S.

                Note: Unless you have someone in office who can stand in the bully pulpit and convince America that this posture makes us less safe, unless you have a president unfraid and willing to knock on the Pentagon door, our foreign policy will remain the same. That is not Hillary Clinton. And there's plenty of other names often mentioned as our favorites who would have the political capital to make that move.

                Link to the QDR~warning, this is to the Defense Dept.

              •  Right you are (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bablhous, bluewolverine, Heterodoxie

                Articulating a clear alternative is indeed the task, and one that will not be accomplished in a day.

                I sometimes think of this site as being like a swarm of ants moving grains of sand around in a seemingly random way. But over time a coherent alternative narrative begins to emerge.  Establishing that alternative narrative in the minds of body politic is a prerequisite to substantive change in national policy.  Electing even the most enlightened progressive leader will not accomplish much until the alternative narrative is widely understood.

                Until then, in the international arena, we can absolutely expect the Dems to behave substantially like the Republicans.  Surely they will be more subtle, more sophisticated, employing diplomacy and alliances in preference to unilateral military adventurism, but still working in the cause of capitalism, imperialism, militarism, and American supremacy.

                It is critically important to understand the essential ways in which this century is different from the last 500 years.  That has to be the start point in constructing the alternative narrative we so urgently need.

    •  the neocons got started (8+ / 0-)

      with democratic senator scoop jackson's staffers. they'll follow power, their aims are tied to a vision of foreign policy, not partisan dominence. bet on it.

      crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

      by wu ming on Sun May 28, 2006 at 09:14:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's a matter of degree (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tgs1952, bgod, bablhous, bluewolverine, Wary

      Americans are told very little about foreign policy. Foreign policy is all about controlling oil and selling arms and the corporatocracy wants politicians who will play ball. It was very sad to me to notice little bits of evidence that Clinton was playing ball....$3billion in arms to Columbia for example.
      Sure Republican presidents like Reagan and BushI and Bush II have been weaker and more cooperative but I think that the Democratic Senators interested in running for president in 2008, who voted for the Iraq War Resolution were telescoping their willingness to play ball and support a war to control oil in the Middle East.
      What's so egregious is how the rights of American soldiers, American taxpayers and indigenous people in energy rich third world countries have to keep paying a price to enrich the multinationals at the expense of world peace and stability.  
      We can do better.

    •  Some of them. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GreenSooner, cotterperson, Wary

      There's always been a significant (if minority) isolationist bloc in the Republican Party.  They're really of two minds when it comes to this kind of stuff... right now, one side is dominating, but it's only a matter of time (especially given the Iraq debacle) before the isolationist wing of the party takes back control.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site