Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Agree 100% (13+ / 0-)

    And thinking there's some small cabal related to defense spending completely ignores the fact that the defense industry in the years after WWII spread out their production such that just about every member of Congress had his or her pet project, because it meant jobs and government money being spent in his or her district.  

    But the PNAC types aren't about buying stuff.  That's the money.  No, they're about using it, and in ways that don't necessarily match the desires of the defense industry.  The money isn't in kevlar or even precision munitions.  The money is in aerospace and ships and lots of other systems that aren't important in the kinds of endeavors they PNAC types promote.  

    The PNAC isn't motivated by money.  If they were, they'd be easier to understand and thwart.  No, instead, they're motivated by strange ideas of virtue and power, and who's best suited to wield power.  It makes them harder to co-opt, to compromise with, or to discuss the public good, because they're in it for all or nothing.    

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by Dana Houle on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:51:54 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  This is pretty naive, isn't it? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ChemBob

      Asserting that there's no cabal running the military-industrial complex because the complex worked its way into the pocket of as many Congressional members as possible is either naive or a little disingenuous.

      The ubiquitous nature of defense projects hardly means that there wasn't a small group of contractors who recognized that this was a way to succeed.

      -8.38, -4.97 "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

      by thingamabob on Sun May 28, 2006 at 09:30:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually (7+ / 0-)

        DHinMI made a point that i made in a comment I erased because I got a phone call and lost my train of thought.

        I basically agree with DH in the small sense that he is applying to PNAC as a specific organization.  And I definitely agree with him about how military contracts have been doled out to as many Congressional districts per porject as possible.

        Where we differ is that I do not see PNAC's specific policies and ideology as genuinely important.  They are merely one manifestation of a larger consensus.  That is what Kagan's column demonstrates.  He wants the consensus more than anything else.  He needs both parties to have a consensus, not on PNAC's agenda, but on the real agenda.

        •  Exactly. Without saying so (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drsmith131, slouise217, CarolynC967, Wary

          directly, several posters here buy into that consensus. We need a foreign policy consensus. I'm not very happy with a consensus not based on a working toward a future in which the military-industrial-congressional complex no longer has immense clout whichever party holds the reins.

          •  Right (5+ / 0-)

            people-powered politics is a direct challenge to 60 years of consensus about how to spend our tax dollars on foreign policy.  We simply won'y sit by an be told lies about Chavez, or Iran, or anything else.

            Someone mentioned that this might doom the people of Darfur.  And that is one possible consequence.  But what he fails to ponder is what the collateral damage is to Iraq might be because we have consensus that allows us to act as readily in Darfur as in Baghdad.

            These are issues for debate.  Not for consensus.

            Destroying the international consensus and making us into a nation that violates human rights and eschews cooperative human rights action is a concern.  But let's look at our history more honestly for a change.

            Are we going to do anything differently?  Or are we just going to empower Woolsey over Tenet?  That's not what I am about.

        •  I'm not disagreeing with DH on the scale (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wary

          I accept that the military-industrial complex is probably no different than General Motors (big cog in that engine) in aligning America's interests with its own. But I don't see this as proof that there is no smaller subset of organizations and individuals working more behind the scenes to protect those interests.

          In fact, I suppose I'm not really arguing that it's a "cabal" either, but that there is a mutuality of interest which helps shape their collective behaviour. And this mutuality of interest emanates from worldviews held in common.

          Fine. But how does that in any way support the argument that the DLC and PNAC could not also have such a mutuality of interest? If anything, it suggests that they do, but that it's not the product of a conspiracy.

          I don't know, does that difference mean much? Does it contradict your assertion that that mutuality of interest is understood and being exploited by Kagan and others?

          You know, it's late. I just may be full of shit here.

          -8.38, -4.97 "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

          by thingamabob on Sun May 28, 2006 at 10:16:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I'm Naive AND Disingenuous (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Phoenix Woman

        And thank you for the argument laying out the case to prove that rather than just stating it.  I'm convinced!

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Mon May 29, 2006 at 01:25:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There isn't time in the world (0+ / 0-)

          For me to begin trying to "convince" you of much, I think. And I thought the argument was pretty clear--

          While the exposure of a small group of individuals coordinating (secretive) actions to reach a commonly held goal might be proof that there is a cabal, the lack of such exposure and the existence of a much larger group pursuing some goals in common is not in itself a proof that a cabal does not exist.

          In logical terms, A --> B is not identical with ¬A --> ¬B.

          -8.38, -4.97 "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

          by thingamabob on Mon May 29, 2006 at 05:41:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here's the deal (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bluewolverine, Alice Marshall

            If PNAC were all about and only about the money, they'd be more pragmatic and thus easier for us to deal with.

            But as DHinMI points out (and he and I have had our run-ins in the past; I am by no means his best bud), these guys aren't just motivated by money, but by ideology:  They really do believe that what they are doing is good.

            •  I concur (0+ / 0-)

              Why is it so easy for human communication to go awry?

              DH and others seem to think I am asserting that the PNAC cabal is a cabal dedicated to filthy lucre... moolah... bucks... samolyans... you got it, money.

              That is not what I am asserting at all. I agree that PNAC is not about the money qua money, but they are about the money as a means to achieve their ideologically pure ends. But so what? That's not really my point, either. The fact is even PNAC is probably not a 100% homogeneous group all pursuing the exact same end for the exact same reason using the exact same means. Some may want power because it's the greatest good; others because it's the ONLY good; others still because it's the only means of achieving ANY good.

              What matters, however, is not what the intellectual underpinnings of PNAC are, nor whether they exhibit marvellous ideological integrity, but what the implications are of their worldview, their tactics and their influence on US politics.

              I still don't see that the discussion about money matters; though I will specify that if Booman's point was to say that they are only interested in the money, then he's wrong. I didn't get that from the diary.

              -8.38, -4.97 "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

              by thingamabob on Mon May 29, 2006 at 10:32:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Here's what I told Thing... (0+ / 0-)

          "If PNAC were all about and only about the money, they'd be more pragmatic and thus easier for us to deal with.

          But as DHinMI points out (and he and I have had our run-ins in the past; I am by no means his best bud), these guys aren't just motivated by money, but by ideology:  They really do believe that what they are doing is good."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site