Skip to main content

Robert Kagan is the co-founder with William Kristol of the Project for the New American Century and he thinks it will be better for America if the Democrats win the 2008 contest for the Presidency. If that surprises you, you haven't been paying attention. As far as the PNAC crew goes, power isn't about being a Republican or a Democrat, it's about owning both parties. And, fortunately for us, Kagan is spectacularly upfront about this. To understand his mindset it's important to understand that he doesn't divide the world up into left and right, but into interventionist and isolationist. Kagan has representatives in the Democratic Party. They can loosely be described as the members of the Democratic Leadership Council and the writers at The New Republic.

These opinion leaders consider America to be the 'indispensable nation' and they consider it vital to world peace and security that America maintain its role in the world. For example, it's critical that we maintain military bases from Okinawa, to Tashkent, to Kandahar, to Baku, to Turkey, Baghdad, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Dubai, to Eritrea. From the outside, it looks like they benefit from their association or investments in the companies that do business in those countries, or the companies that arm our military to defend themselves in foreign lands and equip our home defenses to protect against the resentment our occupations cause. But, from the inside, it's more complicated. It's about the evils of communism, or fascism, or Islamo-fascism, or whatever is required as a rhetorical tool next week.

The way Kagan sees it is actually quite interesting to read. He thinks it is natural for a party too long out of power to become accustomed to opposing our foreign policy and therefore drift into a dangerous isolationism. Of course, it isn't entirely clear for whom this drift presents a danger. It's certainly not a threat to the American taxpayer, just for one example. But, it is definitely a threat to those that make their living hawking military and homeland security equipment. That's why Kagan says the following:

The next president, whether Democrat or Republican, may work better with allies and may be more clever in negotiating with adversaries. But the realities of the world are what they are, and the imperatives of U.S. foreign policy are what they are. The diffuse threats of the post-Cold War world simply don't unite and energize our European allies as the Soviet Union did, and even a dedicated "multilateralist" won't be able to get them to spend more money on defense or stop buying oil from Iran. A smarter negotiating strategy toward Iran might or might not make a difference in stopping its weapons program. Soft power will go only so far in dealing with problems such as North Korea and Sudan.

In fact, the options open to any new administration are never as broad as its supporters imagine, which is why, historically, there is more continuity than discontinuity in American foreign policy. If the Democrats did take office in 2009, their approach to the post-Sept. 11 world would be marginally different but not stunningly different from Bush's. And they would have to sell that not stunningly different set of policies to their own constituents.

Kagan is part of a literal cabal of people in Washington (in Congress, in thinktanks, in this case, the Washington Post's editorial pages) that assure that any new administration's 'options' are limited and that their approach will not be stunningly different from Bush's. These are the folks that brought you the stalemated Korean War and the need for permanent bases in the south, the disastrous Vietnam War, the Committee on the Present Danger, and Team B. They employ journalists like Judith Miller to write about anthrax, and journalists like Peter Beinert to advocate a tougher foreign policy line from Democrats. They love and contibute to politicians like Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, Diane Feinstein, and Jane Harman. As long as they can control the debate, assure a centrist nominee from the Democrats, and keep the level of fear in the public high, their racket is safe, even if the people in the World Trade Center were not.

Some may see this as a typical leftist critique. But it's more than that. This is how Washington works, how power wields itself, how the Democrats are co-opted, and how we keep repeating our mistakes by involving ourselves in costly foreign entanglements.

Perhaps the most flamboyant and successful of their campaigns was the one they used to convince us that we defeated the Soviet Union through military spending. It had nothing to do with the superior example our society made to the world through our civil liberties, personal freedoms, prosperity, and human rights advocacy. Nor did it have anything to do with the Soviets poor example and lack of these things. No, no. We brought the Soviets to their knees by spending billions on a failed missile shield and the V-22 Osprey.

Ask yourself something. How much did the wars and proxy war in Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, and Grenada do to contribute to the demise of the Soviet Union? How is Iraq helping today? Being out of power for a while does tend to focus the mind when you ask yourself that question. And that is a major threat to people like Kagan. That is why at least half of PNAC now considers it desirable that a Democrat (like Hillary or Biden or Richardson or Bayh or Vilsack or Warner) becomes the next President. They think they can control them, and they are probably right.

The Democrats need to take ownership of American foreign policy again, for their sake as well as the country's. Long stretches in opposition sometimes drive parties toward defeatism, utopianism, isolationism or permutations of all three. What starts off as legitimate attacks on the inevitable errors of the party in power can veer off into a wholesale rejection of the opposition party's own foreign policy principles.

It's precisely the foreign policy principles of our nation's leaders and arms merchants that have led us to where we are today, and it is precisely the utopianism of the Project for a New American Century and their neo-conservative allies littering the halls of power that has undermined the consensus for permawar and a permawar footing among the left.

Kagan gives away the game in this column. His assumption is that the causes of threats to the homeland have no causal basis in American imperialism, occupation, or double standards. The only potential cause for a threat comes from those that don't advocate doing more of the same, spending more of the same, and doing it with more bellicosity, fewer allies, and less national unanimity.

At least, it seems that way. But, in reality, it's more complicated. How can you explain that a man that was Deputy for Policy under Bush-pere-pardoned Elliott Abrams, Principal Speechwriter for Secretary George Schultz and foreign policy advisor to Jack Kemp would write a column advocating the Republicans be swept out of the White House? The answer is that he fears the Democrats will move so far to the left if they do not elect a DLC Democrat in 2008 that it will endanger the consensus within this country that allows us maintain bases all throughout Asia and an enormous military budget.

Somewhere in the depths of his mind, Kagan probably is asking the same questions we are asking. Isn't is possible that we could erode the threat of terrorism more effectively, and at an acceptable cost in treasure, by finding a new consensus within the community of representative democracies and advanced economies of the world? One that isn't opposed by everyone but the bribed and the coerced? One that shares the burdens of collective security, as well as the limitations of international organizations and efforts? One that might limit the scope of American power but also its attendant blowback?

It must have occurred to Kagan, and he knows it is occurring to a growing majority of the left. Kagan throws this heretical thinking aside and states:

...the imperatives of U.S. foreign policy are what they are. The diffuse threats of the post-Cold War world simply don't unite and energize our European allies as the Soviet Union did...
In other words, this Zarqawi/Zawahiri/bin-Laden bullshit just isn't working with the left, and if we don't give them a Hillary or Biden or Lieberman to rally around, they'll leave the reservation for good.

Better to avoid permanently losing one of two American power parties than for the GOP to win in '08.

What better example could we have of what's at stake, who's on our side, and how big our potential for positive change really is.

This is complimentary piece to my Thoughts for Memorial Day.

Originally posted to on Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:42 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Wow (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That was very suprising..
    For some reason I feel like he will end up supporting the Republican.
    But defintely a good sign.
    In 2004, it was in a way a referendum on Bush.... I feel like 2008 is going to be a referendum on him again... because the Republicans will be so tainted.

    •  Hell no, it's not a good sign (64+ / 0-)

      This guy is endorsing the Democratic Party for political convenience - whoever will push ahead PNAC's neoconservative foreign policy agenda. The fact that they think that our party has enough people who will support its wholly unrealistic agenda (and there are enough, sadly, starting first and foremost with HRC) is not a good sign at all.

      -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 05:38:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In fact, (27+ / 0-)

        they shopped their agenda to Bill Clinton while he was still in office...they are opportunists, pure and simple.  Has nothing to do with being "liberal" or "conservative".  

        •  Well... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ManOnTheBench, bluewolverine, sunbro, Wary

          Their agenda appeals more to "conservatives" than to "liberals", simply by virtue of pre-existing prejudices. (I could explain my reasoning behind this, but it is far too involved to fit within the margins of this comment.)

          These guys used to be Stalinists, for example. (Although Stalin's place on "the left" is dubious, i'll grant it for this example.) Then they switched to being "Conservatives" when Stalinism imploded violently.

          The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

          by Shapeshifter on Sun May 28, 2006 at 09:08:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree (4+ / 0-)

            And during this Bush time other countries world wide have been comparing Bush to Stalinism. I think he was right on the cusp there, he's been 'contained' to a degree in Iraq.

            Stalin in no way was 'leftest' there's another term I use to describe when the fascist and comminist extremist meet in a 'nexus' and that is totalitarian.

            And there's no doubt in my mind that Bush and the neo cons are in that nexus--totalitarians particularly since as booman stated they don't care, right or left, they just want to 'own' parties, and that is correct.

          •  Who among them were Stalinists? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            daaawi, bluewolverine

            Many were Trotskyists, but so far as I know none were Stalinists.  There's a big difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism (not the least being that Trostkyists are largely defined by their anti-Stalinism/anti-Communism).

            It's worth getting things like this right.  Tracing the intellectual roots of neoconservatism is important, but done sloppily is too easily dismissed as conspiracy mongering.

            Neo-conservatism is a more multivalent movement than it's usually given credit for.  Claims that all neo-cons were or are, e.g., Trotskyites, Straussians, "Likudniks," etc. are easily disproven.  

            Nonetheless, many older neo-cons were Trotskyites.  More importantly, many of the intellectual roots of neo-conservative understandings of American foreign policy can be found in the works of earlier ex-Trotskyites like James Burnham.

            (Incidentally, for my money, the best work on the origins of neo-conservatism is still Gary Dorrien's The Neoconservative Mind.)

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

            by GreenSooner on Mon May 29, 2006 at 07:45:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  And if memory serves, Clinton (0+ / 0-)

          threw their little document in the trash can.  Maybe Kagan just sees the writing on the wall.......

          "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

          by Lying eyes on Mon May 29, 2006 at 09:01:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  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

          •  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.

      •  This is awful!! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rhubarb, bluewolverine, Jared Lash

        Talk about rubbing our noses in it.  I couldn't believe the flack Sirota just took for his diary on HRC and her corporate pals.  Wonder if he'll ever come back.  

        "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

        by dkmich on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:29:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How many well-meaning... (0+ / 0-)

        ... Democratic, or even independent voters will be swayed by this endorsement? For that matter, how many will be swayed by the RWTP (Right Wing Talking Point), "Some Democrats think it will be strategically better to lose by a small margin than win by a small margin."

        Put the two ideas together and you have a great campaign to strip away a certain percentage of Democrat voters.

        When it comes to language chess, Republicans are like Bobby  friggin" Fishers.


      •  Strategic cynicism and foreign interest (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The more I learn, the more I'm convinced that our political process is being orchestrated from abroad.  We're being played.  That extends to elections, but the main point is to control U.S. Mid-East policy.  There's a partnership with BushCo, alright, but the GOP is definitely the junior partner and is not providing strategic guidance.

        I've long thought that if there is actual election tampering, it's coming from abroad.  Even Rove wouldn't dare try to directly sabotage federal elections.  But, that would be part of a day's work well done for a foreign intel agency (or private agency), just as we interfere in the policies, politics and elections of our allies, they are likely doing it to us.  But, far more effectively.  They have the perfect tools to do it.  

        The main objective in this game isn't tactical advantage to the Republicans, it's bigger picture than that.  If they could do it through the Dems, they'd be just as happy, and probably happier.  They know the GOP has overplayed its hand, and is on the way out.  If the Hillary/Lieberman/DLC wing prevails, that would best suit their purposes.

        • Mark
      •  PNACers (0+ / 0-)

        are Imperialists first, Republicans or Democrats second.

        PNACers like to think of themselves as the ultimate realists. I read Kagan as saying he recognizes that there's a very good chance that the Dems will take the WH in '08 (i.e. he's a 'realist') so he needs to 'warn' them right now that they will have to accept that PNAC foreign policy is still the only way to go (once again being a 'realist').

    •  but don't we want (7+ / 0-)

      it to be a referendum on the policies that got us in this mess?  Kagan is ditching the messenger but is proposing that the message be the same.

    •  ITS ALL ABOUT AIPAC (8+ / 2-)

      """They love and contibute to politicians like Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, Diane Feinstein, and Jane Harman."""

      How much does your representative receive to place Israels interesr before our own. You may not like what you see.

      PNAC is all about fighting Israels Agenda. PNAC is a souless lot.  It is true they could gave a rats ass whether it is Republican or Democrat, its about power and meddling. No I am not antisemitic, I am an honest Jew.

      •  You're an idiot! (3+ / 0-)

        You say

        PNAC is all about fighting Israels [sic] Agenda.

        which is the biggest bunch of crap, and either you're an idiot or a troll (hence my troll rating).  AIPAC (as per your title) is NOT pro-Israel, and is not advocating Israeli agenda.  AIPAC is effectively an Israeli version of PNAC.  As such, AIPAC is not pro-Israel in the slightest, just as PNAC is certainly not pro-America.

        PNAC is merely a scheme to consolidate power for a handful of American politicians and policies on the extreme right.  AIPAC is the same thing for supporting a handful of Israeli politicians and policies on the extreme right.  AIPAC is extremist, they don't represent the general attitude of the majority of Israelis, and claiming AIPAC is pro-Israel is utterly absurd.

        •  Your argument that AIPAC (7+ / 0-)

          is actually detrimental to Israel seems to me an excellent one.

          But are you also arguing that AIPAC has no influence over U.S. policy? Because, in spite of Heterodoxie's tone, the point seems to be that some in Congress may listen to AIPAC a little too much. That THEY believe or are intimidated into believing the idea that AIPAC DOES represent Israeli interests.

        •  Stop Embarrassing yourself (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Event Horizon

          I could do a dissertation on the ignorance in your post.

          You assert;
          AIPAC is effectively an Israeli version of PNAC.  As such, AIPAC is not pro-Israel in the slightest, just as PNAC is certainly not pro-America.

          Grow up child and stick with actions and behaviors.  Simply believing those organizations do not carry out "your" beliefs as honorable or justifiable does not alter their actions and impacts.  Although I do not subscribe to them either however, your impish denial and naive supposition that they are not relevent and influential to the benefit of the current Israel governemnt shows your clear ignorance.

          May I suggest you educate yourself on AIPAC and its factual objectives before you further embarrass yourself.  You sir are clearly a troll masquerading as an informed person.

          •  Your reply (0+ / 0-)

            proves the subject of my previous point exactly.  Thanks.

            •  You stand corrected (0+ / 0-)

              As evident by the amount of recommendations I received versus your childish reactionary troll rating.
              You lose the arguement as a result of a failed response.

              Need I remind you you violated the Troll rating standard.  Responding with a put down without showing a counterposition proves you failed.  Should you be reported?  No I will overlook it and give you the benefit of the doubt, something you did not do by attacking me personally (your an idiot)instead of providing an intellectual retort or counter arguement.

              "there is one particular reason troll ratings should never be used: to express disagreement with a poster's opinion. If you disagree, you can say so, but so long as the commentor is stating their opinion civilly, merely disagreeing with your own opinion.

              Trolling defined
              Trolling, defined, is not simply disagreeing with your opinion or the collective site opinion. It is engaging in behavior which is directly contrary to the stated goals of the site -- furthering the progressive Democratic agenda."

              When to use troll ratings
              This started as an essay by Hunter about troll rating in a Dailykos diary [1]

              Thank you for showing my psoition was more substantial.

              •  I didn't (0+ / 0-)

                troll-rate based on disagreement, if I did you'd see a helluva lot more troll ratings in my history.

                You can play ratings scores if you want, but if you really seek unbias you'd quickly find that the same comment posted on two different threads can receive very different ratings, and it all depends on which types of moderators go to those threads.

                But you can believe whatever makes you able to look yourself in the mirror in the morning.

                •  Apology accepted (0+ / 0-)

                  So you admit you troll rated based on spite as you provided no counter position only a disparaging insult.  Thats a clear violation of the troll rating standards. If you need clarification then we can progress to the review of Kos Administration.  Somehow in an objective moment of clarity I cannot see you feeling comfortable with a childish empty retort of "your an idiot."

                  I have reviewed your writing before and in other formats. You should note I was not in disagreement with you but was disappointed and offended by what clearly did not contribute to the dialogue.

        •  I agree, except.. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It is just not Americans or Isrselis.

          Globalization may just be something we are still studying or protesting, but it is life to the PNACers and the AIPACers and they are not all American or Israeli.

          They sit on the thrones of the monarchies of the Gulf States as well.

          They are to be found in every nation's capitol.

          Their currency is fear and hatred. It is by this, ye shall know them.

          When fascism comes to America, it will come draped in the flag and carrying a cross

          by TDW on Mon May 29, 2006 at 06:46:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  To Hell with AIPAC and PNAC... (5+ / 1-)

        PNAC is all about fighting Israels Agenda. PNAC is a souless lot.  It is true they could gave a rats ass whether it is Republican or Democrat, its about power and meddling. No I am not antisemitic, I am an honest Jew.

        Is it possible to ever elect a candidate who would cut the ropes?  And I'm also not antisemitic, but I think it's time to force them to leave the nest.

        Why don't they just leave us alone?  This gets me so angry!  Why do we have to take care of them?  It's not our job IMHO.

    •  A lot of the "neocons" (6+ / 0-)
      used to be or still are registered democrats.   The seeds of their ideas grew in the offices of Democratic Senators like Scoop Jackson.

      And the original seed ideas were not bad, as they were based on the old democratic principles of confronting aggressively those that oppress the weak.  

      It wasn't until the democratic party took a turn for the pacifist that these guys were forced into the orbit of the GOP and their neurologically retarding radiation which mutated their ideas into something appropriately Vaderian.

      There used to be a time in this country, not that long ago since it is in the span of my living memory, that the democrats were considered to be the more aggressive of the two parties; as in when they talked about kicking somebody' ass they really meant it.  And the GOP was considered to be the more cautious and demurring of the two.

      Hence the old saw about the difference between democrats and republicans being that the GOP wants a big military that they send nowhere and the Dems want a small military that they would send EVERYWHERE.

      There are probably a whole lot of what would be called "Reagan" Democrats out there that would come back to the party of their youth if it started to sound a bit more like the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy then it presently does or has for a couple of decades or more.

      And if the party sounded like that the Rethugs would not have dared to make the kind of slurs about democrats that they have the last 6 years!  They would have known that to do so would end up with them getting their skulls bashed in.  A skill the modern party seems to have forgotten the usefulness of.

      •  This would be a good thing? (6+ / 0-)

        To return to Scoop Jackson days, Vietnam and endless war, Democrats style?

        No thanks.

        •  Actually? (0+ / 0-)

          Yeah it would be nice to see the Democratic party remember that it used to be a party of FIGHTERS.  

          There was nothing that dictated endless war about Scoops stance.  It called for the occasional war to aid the downtrodden out from under the shit covered heel standing on their throats.

          You know actually giving a damn about the good guys and not propping up the thugs and butchers this country was notorious for during the cold war.  Why not just SUPPORT the progressives in other countries with force if need be to topple those thugs?

          It is a good idea in principle, and it would have been a good policy given that part of the reason that so many people in dark and dusty places hate our stinking guts is that we talk a good game, but when push comes to shove and it might involve out spilling some of our precious blood?

          We will back away from our ideals and install a despot to brutally crush those people.

          How many times instead of supporting democratic leaning groups in countries did we instead install governments such as Pinochet, or prop up scum like Somoza, Saddam... the list is lengthy.  How many times have we plunged a nation into a political twilight of repression, reprisal and torture because to do otherwise would involve US armed involvement to prop up a fledgling democracy; how many times have we not only provided the whip hand but the whip itself that kissed the backs of those people.

          How many times have we NOT done what France did for a small group of democratically minded traitors to the English crown?

          That was the point of Jackson' policy:  Support freedom for ALL men even if you have to fight for it for someone else.

          But that in noway makes the war in Iraq THAT war.  No, it is close to the opposite of what Scoop would have intended.

      •  I aggree with some points (0+ / 0-)

        Except that of the Reagan Democrats coming back to the Democratic Party if it returned to it's 'kick ass stand' policies, I think this Iraqi invasion/occupation --the economy--has even them returning in some measure, I know many of their children aren't taking into automatic 'republican party' identification.

        Those other Reagan Democrats are the ones that the GOP are going to pander to in the summer--those 'anti's" same sex marriage, flag burners, those are the ones the GOP wants will pander to.

        •  yeah... (0+ / 0-)

          Some of them would come back and stay but I agree that there is probably a percentage that are lost for good and that may not be a totally bad thing.

          I think I have been nibbling along the edges of an idea that is half formed in my head and it got expressed a little in the post.

          I think part of the reason that the Democrats have not been putting up the kind of fight against the GOP that we would like in a lot of cases is that the party' emotional and psychological mindset has shifted away from being more confrontational.  And I still don't have a really good way of expressing fully what I am thinking on this....

      •  I really HATE this 'centrist' meme (0+ / 0-)

        dammit, these guys are right wing HAWKS. Just a cursory examination of current polls about Iraq indicate the majority of the electorate is NOT in favor of this war.

        That makes the center somewhere left of the right wing war enablers. I like to think that, for example, Democracy for America is pretty much the mid center, despite all the name calling from the right wing.

        We MUST seize this term from these pretenders.

        Continuing the national debate---People for Change --*help us TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK*

        by MikeHickerson on Mon May 29, 2006 at 01:29:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Your point about the DLC is dead on (15+ / 0-)

    Kagan's is just acting out of self-interest to keep the PNAC imperial dream alive. There are imperialists and military fantasists on both sides--ours has fewer, knock on wood--and since it's original vehicle, the GOP, has rendered itself a steaming mess, he's just looking to keep the PNAC dream alive.

    There are so many parasites to use as an analogy, it's impossible to choose just one to describe PNAC.

  •  I might be as (15+ / 0-)
    cynical as Booman: in order to maintain the status quo, there must be a theatrical opposition. And Hillary has been anointed.

    "It is a tale told, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

    "Come on, Nicky, come home. Just come home. Home. Talk to me. ....Do you remember the trees?"

    by Miss Devore on Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:44:15 PM PDT

  •  Recommended (7+ / 0-)

    But ...

    I think your analysis is generally good, but I'm not convinced on the details.

    If you remember the Clinton presidency, people like Kagan were 100% shut out of cabinet appointments and the like.  Would a Hillary Clinton presidency embrace these people?  It seems unlikely, though Lieberman might possibly bring them in.

    It seems to me that what Kagan and Kristol would want is to continue to exercise influence either via hook or crook should the Democrats take the executive in 2008.  But none of the folks who appear to be serious contenders now seem likely -- to me -- to want to be filling the White House up with Perle, Wolfowitz and kin.

    For one thing, the Iraq War has made them a bit radioactive ...

    But for another, there are lots of experienced foreign policy Dems who are, frankly, much better qualified to serve in these positions and in other positions of influence, as advisors, etc.

    "Get your hands off our Internet" -- U.S. phone and cable companies, to bloggers and independent Internet content producers

    by bink on Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:46:46 PM PDT

    •  Clinton? Perry and Cohen weren't PNAC . . . (9+ / 0-)

      but certainly they both supported the "two theaters" strategery, which in my view might as well be PNAC-ian.

      PNAC-ers don't actually see the need to have PNAC-ers in office; they just see to it that they are orchestrating the debate. If there's a single finger to be pointed at the logic of vilifying Democrats for not being strong enough on defense, it's PNAC. That "America: Fuck Yeah!" meme keeps their agenda going no matter who is actually constructing defense budgets and running policy.

      •  Kristol about Clinton (0+ / 0-)

        Has been writing about the days of old with Clinton, how he was right on and willing to use the military option but he had not gone far enough, but was 'moving in that direction'

        I think that Clinton's foreign policy differed from PNAC in many respects, Clinton wanted to help people in a cautious, way--that's not what PNAC is about, it's about a militaristic approach to take on the world, one very much expressed by Bush with his 'axis of evil'  kncoking out 'tyrants' etc, however as we see in Iraq the opposite is becoming true. And we have many such failed examples--Viet Nam, Korea, the USSR had Afghanistan, France had Algiers--militaristic options are for those who want to use people as pawns as in a game.

    •  I don't think Hillary (0+ / 0-)

      would invite PNAC into the White House or install its minions in cabinet positions, but I do believe she would do her part to keep the military-industrial complex alive and fluorishing.

      We need a candidate who plays foreign policy with finesse and understands nuance, who doesn't parade our military as the answer to every foreign policy problem the country faces.

      I appreciate that the Big Dawg used our military sparingly, and only as a last resort as in the Balkans, but I'm not sure that Hillary shares his views on the limitations of what the military can accomplish.

      It would be interesting to know how Bill would have reacted to 9/11, what with the country screaming for Arab blood and insisting that the attacks on the WTC constituted an "act of war."  Of course if he had still been in the White House, the whole mess may have been averted.

      (-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 05:06:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's a pretty big stretch (6+ / 0-)

    to say that Kagan and the DLC agree on foreign policy. As a matter of fact, it's complete crap.  The DLC has its militaristic focus, but they are far from supporting the PNAC worldview. These conspiracy theories about the DLC make us look like complete idiots.

    •  The conspiracy (44+ / 0-)

      is all out in the open in Kagan's column.  The people that obsess about the PNAC have built them up into something more than they are.  They are for a robust unilateralist foreign policy for the $$$$, not because they love some University of Chicago professor and fascism.  

      They do believe at least some of what they say, but they have always been about scaring the public and influencing the threat assessments of the government about communism, and now terrorism, and also infecting the media coverage of those threats so America will support large military expenditures.  It really is mostly about the money and not ideology or which party is in power.

      •  I'll read the whole column and get back to you (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Caldonia, Lying eyes, Wary

        but having read Kagan's book, and having read the DLC's foreign policy positions, I'm having trouble buying that because Kagan wants Dems to take back some power means that DLC is aligned with the PNAC worldview.

        •  Let me try again (22+ / 0-)

          The PNAC worldview is a front.  It's a mirage.  It serves a different purpose that the purpose it purports to support.  It's not about Zionism as its critics so often contend, but about money.  It's about shaping the mind of the public, and that is where the Straussian stuff comes into play.

          The DLC (as it pertains to foreign policy) is just another face or mask of the same phenenomon.  

          So, you're right to say that the DLC worldview is not exactly aligned with the neo-conservative one.  But the PNAC is almost as happy to use the DLC's mask as their own.  

          They would rather the DLC control the Democratic Party than the Bushies destroy the brand of both PNAC and the DLC.

          •  I have no doubt as to the PNAC's motives (6+ / 0-)

            but to assume that because the PNAC wants to use the Dems or the DLCers in particular does not mean that the DLC wants to be used by them. And that's what I was left with from your diary.  

            Kagans' philosophy has to do with the ultimate right to dominate the world. The DLC does not promote that worldview. They are much more progressive (gasp!) than that, although, as I said, clearly much less progressive than the tastes of most Kossacks. They are willing to use military force. That is what they have in common, and that is obviously where most of us differ with them. That is not the same thing as saying it's the same phenomenon.

            •  Corpocracy is what its about (18+ / 0-)

              The DLC and the PNAC are both about corporate control of our foreign policy, along with the rest of our government, not for ideological reasons but because that's where the money is.

              It used to be said that the Democrats care about people and the Republicans care about money.  The difference is harder to define, these days.

              Reality has a well-known liberal bias. --Colbert

              by MadScientist on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:58:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  campaign financing (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oceanspray, Gegner, bdmac

                The campaign financing structure has a lot to do with this. GE, Boeing, etc., have tons of money to distribute to those who support their aim to achieve higher profits.

              •  Why not just say this: (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bluewolverine, ChemBob, bdmac

                PNAC (and I suspect AIPAC, too, same neocons) are just rational expressions and projections of the M/I Complex and their Corporate interactors. There's probably more, with back-ups, if you're really curious.

                Seems like we need to open a study on Human Predation. If we want those things mentioned in the Constitution and The Bill of Rights, we must declare war on those human predators, or, if we're ever so damn clever, eliminate them by whatever means is most effective in lieu of warring.

            •  On military force- (4+ / 0-)

              I think the majority of folks on this site are okay with using military force where we are really attacked but are against using it to simply "dominate the world".

              Maybe that's what you said, but I just wanted to express my opinion formed from the time I've spent here.

              -- What really makes America, America?

              by mike101 on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:09:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agree 100% (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bluewolverine, ChemBob, Wary

                But the neocons seem to be so arrogant that they really BELIEVE that we should make the rest of the world like us!  UGH... that is so arrogant.  Why don't we BE AMERICA, GROW AMERICA, TAKE CARE OF AMERI-cans and let the world take care of all of the little dictators?  If we would get out of the way I think the global problems would resolve themselves.  

                •  Maybe they aren't arrogant (0+ / 0-)

                  Maybe they're well directed, well financed and well armed and making the world into their image is their prime directive.


                  •  If that is their prime directive, ... (0+ / 0-)

                    I wonder how they justify it to themselves- as a personal power trip; that the world would really be a better place to live; or, are they just that much into doing what they're told to do by those holding some sort of power.

                    Maybe it's just a loose coalition of the ignorant and/or frightened dupes. If that's what it is, we really have to grab a megaphone.

                    -- What really makes America, America?

                    by mike101 on Mon May 29, 2006 at 02:40:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The Belligerants (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      Whether they justify it or not is dependent on whether they have a conscience.

                      I would suspect their power trip is contained within a larger power game, whether PNAC, incredibly old, rich families, corporations, pick 'em...

                      I would think the upper echelon is a tight hierarchial group, but breaks into several segments going downward and that the coaliton gets looser the farther down you go. Fear and ignorance certainly have some role. This group retaliates. Also note that ignorance in this case is not necessarily lack of education, but a certain lack of questioning, perhaps of sympathetic obedience or coercive control. Power and money seem to play such a role with the neocons, perhaps more than a few saw money as an inducement, a political gravy train hard to quit once it is rolling.

                      And, yeah, the world might be a little better if we cease being the Belligerants. We're making some big waves.

          •  It also explains (0+ / 0-)

            Why they bothered to publish all the material they have. Because the secret part is not in the writings, but the part those writings play in the strategy to manipulate public discourse.

            -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 09:32:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Precisely (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              supersoling, Alexander G Rubio

              that is where there elitism comes into play, that is where they consider themselves philospher kings in the Nicomachean Ethics mold, and where they hail Machiavelli.  It's about confining the areas of debate so that not spending gadzillions of money on the Pentgon and Homeland Security Department is not even considered.  

              Books are written hyping everything from anthrax to ebola to who knows what.  Or, the Soviets have this or that fantasy cabability that must be countered with these massive projects.

              In a sense, they know that Americans will question these priorities if they are not living in a constant fear of annihilation.  So, even if they aren't concerned about money, and just think America is vital to the world's well being, they still would be resorting to these distortion as the only way to maintain support for the expenditures required.

              It's pure cynicism, and it works.  

              Kagan coming out for the Dems is a perfect example of how his partisan writings were a mere mask.  It's what he presents to the world.  But, at base, he doesn't think as a partisan.  He's more strategic than that.  If the Dems run another DLC candidate that isn't staunchly against PNACism as it manifests itself in Iraq, and that candidate loses, then the party will move hard away from centrism, as so many of us have been advocating since at least November 2004.  He can't have that.  Because, one day the Dems will win, and that could really muck things up.   Jesus.  The Kossacks might take power.  

      •  Ultimate opportunists. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Not that many neo-conservatives don't buy into a lot of idealogical crap, but many are just out to get what they can.  Maybe they manage to convince themselves its about the idealogy, but I suppose they are as capable of self deceit as any of us.

      •  You're wrong on one point (12+ / 0-)

        It isn't about the money.

        That's a great motivator, especially considering how deep they are into the whole mess, but it isn't the sole force driving these people.

        It's about their worldview. You can be simplistically juvenile and call it "imperialism" if you want, but the truth is that within the PNAC (and every organization just like it) is a large group of hardcore faithful who genuinely believe the long-term threats to American prosperity can only be overcome with a militant, "looking-out-for-#-1" foreign policy.

        I think your cynicism makes it difficult for you to see this. The defense industry is just along for the ride - they'll go wherever the money happens to be - but the ideas are real, and the people who come up with them aren't trying to market cheap wares to an unsuspecting public. Read the stuff that comes out of PNAC - this stuff is for the consumption of academics, policymakers, and people of actual influence, not NASCAR dads in Peoria.

        Their worldview is a lot more genuine than you want to give them credit for.  

        •  yes, especially Kagan (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lying eyes
        •  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:

            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:

                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."

        •  No 1 (0+ / 0-)

          Looking out for no. 1 means looking out for themselves. They are all intermarried.

        •  Examine the logical consequences (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bluewolverine, Gegner

          It's not about Imperialism, per se, or money, per se, but about POWER. These people maybe both serious and intelligent, they may also be real patriots (whatever that's supposed to mean), but they follow a somewhat simplistic reading of Nietzche and Ayn Rand and believe that the projection of US power in the world is the greatest good.

          And I, and many others, DON'T, for reasons equally logical, serious and intelligent. And it's no use quibbling about money as if it could be considered separate from power; it can't and we all know it.

          It's hardly cynicism to relate an accurate description of what's out there. But it might be to disregard the wisdom of Booman as 'cynicism'.

          By the way, your reference to NASCAR dads befuddles me--you seem to want to score points by essentially buying into the argument you are attacking. Of course PNAC's stuff isn't intended for NASCAR dad's--Strauss neatly summed up their "inability" to even understand it. How this is more "genuine" than Booman gives them credit for, I can't begin to fathom.

          Say "Hi!" to Kagan for me next time you see him.

          -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 09:01:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That their worldview (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lying eyes, Wary, MarketTrustee

          is genuine hardly justifies saying that it is  "simplistically juvenile" to call them imperialists. They ARE imperialists, complicated as their version of an old system may be. As imperialists have genuinely believed throughout history, these think their hegemony will make it a better world. Their high-level discourse may be directed at the opinion-makers, but they have a few snake-oil salespeople for convincing hoi polloi.

      •  The Senator from Boeing (0+ / 0-)

        Need we say more? Money, money, money to Boeing, et. al.  So said Scoop, Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Horner and Feith back in the good old days. And the ones who are still alive, still going at it as Republicans.

    •  The DLC certainly agreed (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Donna Z, wu ming, thingamabob, Gegner

      about attacking Iraq, which the Council signed on for. Not only that, the organization has regularly attacked Howard Dean and other Democrats for expressing opposition to the war. The DLC line currently is to push the "incompetence" theme to the exclusion of a REAL critique of neoconservative foreign policy.

      •  sorry (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Caldonia, Lying eyes

        that is also crap. It doesn't seem that you have read either Kagan's philosophy or the DLC's foreign policy positions.  It's not as simplistic as supporting the invasion or attacks on Howard Dean, neither of which I support, by the way. Booman is asserting that they share an underlying philosophical vision. And I don't see how that is true at all.

        •  I HAVE read the (7+ / 0-)

          DLC's foreign policy positions and a little of Kagan as well.

          There are differences. But they are not as great as you are making them out to be.

          Right Web profiles DLC co-founder Will Marshall:

          Marshall was one of 15 analysts who wrote the Progressive Policy Institute's foreign policy blueprint, "Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy". (2) Using language that mirrors that of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), in October 2003 PPI hailed the "tough-minded internationalism" of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which warned of the present danger in its founding documents, the Progressive Policy Institute declared that "America is threatened once again" and needs assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. Its observation--"like the cold war, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades"--mirrors both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. In its words, PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq, "because the previous policy of containment was failing," and Saddam Hussein's government was "undermining both collective security and international law."

          Like PNAC and the Bush administration, the Progressive Policy Institute has a vision of national security that extends to fostering democracy and freedom around the world in "the belief that America can best defend itself by building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy." It's likely that PNAC itself would heartily agree with PPI's criticism of those who complain that "the Bush administration has been too radical in recasting America's national security strategy." In fact, in assessing the Bush administration's foreign policy agenda, the institute stated, "we believe it has not been ambitious enough or imaginative enough." (2) (3)

          Both in articles in the DLC's Blueprint and in media interviews, Marshall has struck out at Democrats who have either opposed the Iraq invasion or who call for the U.S. to pull out before it is commonly agreed that the "liberation" of Iraq is, as President Bush declared on May 1, 2003, "mission accomplished." On the "They Said It" part of its website, the Republican Party highlights Marshall telling the Los Angeles Times: "You hear way too much from the Democrats in this race about turning over the whole mess to the U.N. Well, that's not credible and most people know it. It doesn't have the power to achieve the only outcome we can accept." (4) (5)

          In a January 2004 article titled "Stay and Win in Iraq," Marshall takes a blithely nationalist view of body counts in a war in which all but a small fraction of the dead are Iraqi civilians. "Coalition forces still face daily attacks but the body count tilts massively in their favor," boasts Marshall, a leading voice for the liberal hawks in the United States. (6)

          The New Democrats insist on the urgency of establishing a "third way" that steers a middle course between "peaceniks" like Dennis Kucinich and "warlords" like Donald Rumsfeld. But when it comes to issues of national security their new progressive internationalism seems like a reconstitution of the old cold war logic. Marshall, for example, sees the war in Iraq as a counterinsurgency campaign that must combine the heavy deployment of U.S. troops with a commitment to winning hearts and minds. Citing neocon analysts at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Marshall comes clean: "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." In his certitude that the same old wars need to be fought again as part of the "third way," Marshall dismisses the unpleasant reality that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party does not agree that the United States has to fight, "like it or not," a new array of counterinsurgency wars in the Middle East. (6)

          Although Marshall calls himself a "centrist," he has associated himself with neoconservative organizations and their radical foreign policy agendas. At the onset of the Iraq invasion, Marshall signed statements issued by the Project for the New American Century calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, advocating that NATO help "secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," and arguing that the invasion "can contribute decisively to the democratization of the Middle East." (7)

          Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neocon figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson of PNAC. (8) At the request of the Bush administration, PNAC's Bruce Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair together with John McCain, aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with Robert Kerrey (who coauthored Progressive Internationalism), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. (9) Other advisers included James Woolsey, Elliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

          On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA-a wellspring of neoconservative strategy-to sign a letter to President Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall and others asked the president to "act alone if that proves necessary" and then, as a follow-up to a military-induced regime change in Iraq, to implement a democratization plan. The SD/USA letter urged the president to commit his administration to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." Others signing the SD/USA letter included Hillel Fradkin, Rachelle Horowitz, Bruce Jackson, Penn Kemble, Robert Kagan, James Woolsey, Nina Shea, Michael Novak, Clifford May, and Ben Wattenberg. (10) (11)

          •  But Despite What People at DKos Believe... (8+ / 0-)

            ...the DLC's power in the party peaked several years ago.  They felt Gore dismissed them, they've gone back to complaining about the other constituencies of the party locking them out, and Al From's corrosiveness has marginalized the DLC compared to the New Democratic Network (NDN).  NDN is, like the DLC, fairly conservative on economic issues.  But they aren't as prone to internecine battles, and they aren't particularly ideologically cohesive.  

            You're correct about Will Marshall's role with the PNAC.  But other than Woolsey--who's seen by most Democrats as a kook--I think he's the only Democrat who signed the PNAC statement.  And in terms of influencing Democrats, I think the only potential Presidential candidates who could be considered heavily influenced by the DLC's foreign policy positions are Bayh and maybe Hillary Clinton.  And despite that, anyone who seeks the 2008 nomination will have to publicly disavow support for anything close to the status quo regarding the Middle East that it will be hard for them to present themselves or to govern as a PNAC-type hawk.

            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 06:45:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Iraq Liberation Act (5+ / 0-)

        Enacted after PNAC sent a letter to Bill Clinton.  Signed by Bill Clinton.

        You can see photos and read the journal from my recent trip to Afghanistan here.

        by Sharon Jumper on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:28:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Besides, Let's Make an Analogy (6+ / 0-)

      What Kagan is saying is loosely analogous to what Nader argued in 2000 and 2004; namely, that we'd be better served by letting the other party win.  

      And you're right; I'm no big fan of the DLC, and it's not a huge stretch to say that SOME of the TNR folks are PNAC fellow travellers (but not John Judis, or Spencer Ackerman and probably several others).  But really, outside of Joementum, there isn't a single prominent and influential Democrat that's close to being a PNAC'er.

      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 06:07:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Furthermore, the PNAC is in Big Trouble (12+ / 0-)

      The post-George W. Bush GOP is unlikely to be a very hospitable place for the PNAC types.  The dominant strain in GOP foreign policy was for a long time isolationist.  That strain of thought is reasserting itself, and is more in keeping with a large percentage of the GOP electorate who dislike government interferrence in their lives if they don't control the government (because most "conservative" Republicans aren't conservative, they're authoritarian).  Sure, some of the key and important activists are enamored with radical religious ideas about the end days, but in terms of votes, more Republicans and Republican voters are of the "let the damn foreigners kill themselves; we can't make them civilized" approach to foreign policy.  Should the GOP lose Congressional power this Fall, and it's attributed to the war in Iraq, there will be a bloodletting in the GOP to get rid of the (disproportionately Jewish and formerly Democratic and highly educated and credentialed) neo-cons.  

      If they don't blow up the world in the next few years, we may have witnessed the peak of neocon power in the GOP's foreign policy.  

      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 06:16:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  seeing that with immigration (8+ / 0-)

        The immigration debate is a perfect example of how the isolationist strain is reasserting itself in the Republican party. They're a little too eager to wall us off, methinks.

        In truth, neoconservatives were never really Republicans. They're the militant wing of the Democratic party. The only reason they fly the Republican flag is because they came about just as the Democrats were seriously taking up the anti-Vietnam-war sentiment. You can't be a pro-war faction inside an anti-war party... it just won't work.

        What I fear is that they find a home in the DLC-style of Democratic politics. The one that says "we're for war when it's done right."

        I'd prefer that the Democratic party stay in the "Afghanistan=good war, Iraq=bad war" camp myself. With the DLC in charge, though, you get "Afghanistan=great war, Iraq=war that looked good on paper."

        •  The PNAC Types Don't Fit in the Dem Party Anymore (9+ / 0-)

          More than anything, they're true believers.  They arose during the cold war, and there's a strong strain of sectarianism in the movement.  (Remember that as a young mad Irving Kristol cut his teeth in Trotskyite circles).  Their approach is of sophistry and ideological combat that's at home in the graduate colloquioum.  But they intensely disdain social science, and at heart most Democrats are inclined toward a pragmatic view of the world (in the sense of philosophical pragmatism).  They are fundamentalists, just like the religious right are fundamentalists about religion, the neocons focused on foreign policy are fundamentalists about statecraft, about diplomacy, about war and conflict, about the nature of states and the state of nature.  

          Not to sound anti-intellectual, but they've spent too much time with books, but only certain kinds of books.  They've honed their exegesis and theoretical skills, but they have an ahistorical, anti-empirical view of the world, and at heart are deeply elitist in ways that probably makes it impossible for them to exert even a fraction of the influence in the Democratic party that they've exercised in the GOP for the last 6-10 years.

          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 06:35:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're saying that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            they've been together so long that they're indulging in group think?

            •  Hmm, Not Really (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wu ming, bluewolverine

              But I think there is such a commonly-held belief in certain modes of discourse and methods of epistomology being either legitimate or illegitimate that it makes it impossible to deal with them in ways common to other realms of politics.  They'll present a philosophically-based argument about the nature of a regime, but when you use social scientific data to refute some element of their argument, they reject it because they have such disdain for social science.  It's all about sophistry for them.

              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 06:55:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree (11+ / 0-)

                with much of what you are saying in your characterizations of the intellectual life of the neo-cons, but I ask you to consider something in addition.

                And that is this: Team B didn't really think that the Soviets had better missile technology and more of them, they wanted to convince policy makers and the public of that fact.  The same is true of the Comm. on the Present Danger, the same is true of Judy Miller's work, and of Scooter Libby's talking points.

                So, what appears to be a rigorous and insulated conversation among academics is really part of a bigger hoax.  And, overinterpreting what they say is much less important than watching what they have done over a long period of time.  PNAC is just a mask for a much broader effort.  The actually encourage this Straussian conspiracy stuff because it is part of their cover, in a sense.

                Of course, there are specific rivalries and ideological differences between PNAC advocates, many of which have erupted since the invasion of Iraq.  People like Fukuyama and Scowcroft now have totally diassociated themselves, for both real and for political reasons.  

                So, we shouldn't overdo PNAC's unanimity, nor should we give the neo-conservatives credit for being radical where they have merely done the same work they did under a bigger umbrella in the 70's and 80's and 90's.

                •  Scowcroft Isn't and Wasn't a Neo (7+ / 0-)

                  Scowcroft is in many ways the antithesis of a neocon.  He's firmly in the realist camp with Kissinger, who the Neocons hate.  

                  And if you think the neocons don't really believe what they say about the nature of regimes and such, you really should reconsider.  They both honestly believed Iraq was a threat, and they honestly believed that once the regime fell that, for reasons having to do with their bizzaroworld views on "the Arab mind," that we would be able to manipulate the Iraqis to do what we wanted.  They honestly believed it would be easy, because they think Arabs are practically sub-human, because they believe the bullshit about the inherent virtuousness in anything we do because we are imbued with greatness that's linked to "the founding," and because the political always overrides the social, so social and tribal differences would be easily manipulated in Iraq to our advantage.

                  It's really amazing.  I think the Straussian connections go a long way to explaining the Bush/Neocon imperialistic policy, and that's certainly a bit of a conspiracy theory.  But you don't like that, you like a theory in which the conspriacy theory is itself the product of a deeper and even more sinister conspiracy theory.  Typical.

                  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 07:32:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, it can (0+ / 0-)

                    be explained as "Straussian" or whatever, but they do subscribe to a certain worldview that favors only a few holding onto power through manipulation of democracy.

                  •  This is incoherent (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    I understand your point about PNAC having become more of a club or cult with its own dogma and heresies, and less acute analysis and reasoning. But at the same time, it's precisely that cultish devotion to their own worldview, even in the face of overwhelming counterfactuals, which makes them both misdirected and extremely dangerous.

                    But I fail to see how it provides much of a challenge to Booman's thesis.

                    -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 09:12:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're Right That You Don't See How... (0+ / 0-)

             "provides much of a challenge to Booman's thesis."  But your inability to understand an argument isn't synomymous with incoherence in the argument.  It says less about the argument than it does about your ability to follow an argument.

                      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 01:31:03 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Then enlighten me, please (0+ / 0-)

                        I don't see your point. Of course, one of the possible reasons for this is my own stupidity. But if that is the case it will be unlikely that I'll recognize it.

                        IN any event, whether it's my stupidity or some other factor, the purpose of my challenging you was not to simply stake out a point in opposition (I don't oppose most of what you say) but to elicit some further elaboration so that I, addle-brained as I am, might better understand.

                        As I see it, Booman's analysis fails on your reading not because he is wrong about PNAC's views or motives, but because he fails to recognize their reverent belief in much of their dogma. They are, therefore, not so much cynical manipulators pursuing power for some hidden purpose, but faithful idealists, pursuing the ideology for exactly the reasons they enunciate.

                        Excuse me for being so thick, but what difference does this make to me? In the end all that matters are the policies and actions they pursue, and it won't make my life any better to think it's out of fervent belief in inaccurate and wrong analysis, rather than simply out of a megalomaniacal desire to run the world or anything else.

                        If a man goes on a shooting spree and kills 10 innocent bystanders, it might make his family feel better (after the fact) to know that he was under the influence of some adverse drug reaction, or neurological condition, or alien mind control. It won't make a scintilla of difference to the victims.

                        -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 05:33:37 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Money or Ideas (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          Booman's theory is that no matter what anyone believes or claims to believe, there's a cabal behind the scenes manipulating things purely for economic gain.  That completely dismisses the ideological content of the neocons, which I think one has to confront if you hope to understand them.  

                          And of the numerous contradictions to his conspricy mongering, he touts the DLC as the vehicle by which the Neocons will seek to influence the Democrats.  The hilarity of that is that the DLC is not a cash cow, and exerts influence far more by means of ideological persuasion and pitching what they believe works with voters and leads to sound governance than they do through funneling money to candidates.  

                          It's all muddled.  

                          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 06:04:01 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  That is the paradigm I (5+ / 0-)

                    am trying to break.  Take a look at James Woolsey's vitae curriculum:

                    Mr. Woolsey is currently Co-Chairman (with former Secretary of State George Shultz) of the Committee on the Present Danger. He is also Chairman of the Advisory Boards of the Clean Fuels Foundation and the New Uses Council, and a Trustee of the Center for Strategic & International Studies and the Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments. He also serves on the National Commission on Energy Policy. Previously, he was Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Board of Regents of The Smithsonian Institution, and a trustee of Stanford University, The Goldwater Scholarship Foundation, and the Aerospace Corporation. He has also been a member of The National Commission on Terrorism, 1999–2000; The Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the U.S. (Rumsfeld Commission), 1998; The President’s Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform, 1989; The President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management (Packard Commission), 1985–1986; and The President’s Commission on Strategic Forces (Scowcroft Commission), 1983.

                    There is not a big difference between the PNAC group and the CoTPD group when it comes to the matter of lucre.  There is a difference in specific policy within the Bush administration, especially as it regards the Iraq invasion.  Kagan is a veteran of the battles over the years, and he is at home at The New Republic as he is at the Weekly Standard, and as at home with Clintonism under the direction of Woolsey as he is under the Bushism under the direction of Tenet.

                    He wants Hillary now.  He does not want the Dems rejecting the compact.

                    •  Thanks for the Evidence He Wants Hillary Now (0+ / 0-)

                      Glad to know you didn't make a leap unsupported by your evidence.

                      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 01:33:30 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Thanks for the Evidence He Wants Hillary Now (0+ / 0-)

                      Glad to know you didn't make a leap unsupported by your evidence.

                      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 01:33:59 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Lead unsupported by the evidence? (3+ / 0-)

                        what's the evidence?  

                        The guy just wrote a column saying, "Could the United States be better off with a Democrat in the White House in 2009? Here are a couple of reasons the answer might be yes, even if you're not a Democrat."  

                        and then he said, "The country could benefit from a similar passing of the baton in the 2008 presidential election...The Democrats, like the Republicans, could nominate a candidate no sensible person would entrust with American foreign policy...But eventually America's post-Sept. 11 foreign policy will probably be better if both parties have a shot at shaping it."

                        In what world must you live in, DH, where that doesn't amount to an endorsement of the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Rodham Clinton?  She obviously is NOT a candidate that Kagan hesitates to entrust with our foreign policy, and if Dennis Kucinich were the front-runner, or if Russ Feingold were the front-runner, Kagan never would have written this article.  

                        •  Sure, Because All Other Dems Are Trusted (0+ / 0-)

                          That's why Kerry won, because the American electorate trusted him with foreign policy.

                          Whatever.  You also see only what you want to see, and you only want to see things that support a grand conspiracy.  This is yet another example.

                          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 07:32:27 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  WTF are you talking about? (3+ / 0-)

                            I said Kagan trusts Hillary, not that the electorate does or will or doesn't.  

                            Kagan not only trusts Hillary, but he trusts all the likely alternatives to Hillary.  Otherwise, he wouldn't be willing to see a lot of his buddies and his past employers and mentors, get thrown out of their positions with a Dem win in 2008.  

                            That's the whole point.  He puts controlling the consensus for "forward-leaning" military deployment (and the budget that necessarily goes with that [cart/horse chicken/egg] in the Democratic Party above his alleged ties to party, to friend, to mentor, to any other specific policy.  He doesn't care about anything else because the likely winners of the Dem primary are all acceptable to him and will not change Bush's policies in any spectacular way.  As he said, they may be better at diplomacy and better negotiators, he doesn't care either way, really.  

                            That's the point DH.  What does that tell you?  It's only a conspiracy if you're not paying attention.  But, seriously, do you consider it typical of conspiracists to write about their beliefs in the Washington Post?  Because I am only working with what the man wrote, not some conspiracy.  

                            They don't want fascism, they want [cart/horse chicken/egg] global hegemony and they are locked in to benefit financially from it from A to Z.  Party-schmarty.   A Hillary is as good as a Jeb to a blind Kagan.

              •  Such as... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wu ming

                ...fixing the facts about Iraq (it was a secular, modernist regime) around the role it needed to play (the root of Islamic radicalism) to be the casus belli for invasion (oil).


                Mitch Gore

                Bush's pre-1776 mentality is hurting America - Russ Feingold

                by Lestatdelc on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:42:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  'at heart are deeply elitist' (5+ / 0-)

            Entirely.  And I mean "elitist" not just as a put-down, but as an apposite description of a world-view that forces them to create a world that confirms their need to be separate from the common flow of humanity and to elevate their perceived position to one of dominance.

            Selfish shit-chewing jackasses pretty much covers it.

            Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, & Rice lied to promote an illegal, aggressive war. Hague 'em!

            by Yellow Canary on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:53:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  DH, you should consider doing a diary (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            walkshills, slouise217, makeitstop
            comparing and contrasting DLC and PNACers.  It might be useful to a lot of discussions around here.
          •  You hit it right on the head with this (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Not to sound anti-intellectual, but they've spent too much time with books, but only certain kinds of books.

            Although I think their real leaders are interested in money and power over all else. A endless war is perfect, as expensive munitions blow up and destroy things that will need rebuilding by worldwide corps.

            "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

            by bewert on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:04:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  But we need to be careful (3+ / 0-)

            DH you're dead on - but we can't let these PNAC guys take away our liberal internationalist roots from us.  Just because they screwed up big time in Iraq (and Afghanistan too really) doesn't mean that we should abandon our party's historic committment to defending human rights and spreading the circle of liberty.

            Like you said we've got to emphasise the pragmatic approach, but in the context of our ideals.  I liked Al Gore's phrase for this: pragmatic idealism.  That's exactly what we need.

            Give me liberty, or give me death!

            by salsa0000 on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:42:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)

              I think the Democratic party isn't really deeply split on foreign policy right now as much as the Republican party is.  From the fall of the Berlin Wall, there's been a farily broad Democratic consensus around liberal internationalism.  It frays and splits in to numerous threads of thought on issues of globalization, but on the major issues of conflict with the neocons--preemptive war, international cooperation vs unilateralism--the Democrats are more unified than a lot of people probably think.  

              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 08:05:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think a lot of people are spooked though (0+ / 0-)

                I keep seeing diaries like this one, ones that put 'indispensible nation' in derisive quotes, and that makes me nervous.  If Democrats don't stand up for human rights in Darfur, for example, then no one will.

                Give me liberty, or give me death!

                by salsa0000 on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:19:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Perhaps it is because the foreign (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  policy of the "indispensable nation" has not exactly been consistent in the realm of human rights, whether Democrats or Republicans were in power. The very term exudes hubris, not "I am proud to be an American" but "We're No. 1, ya motherfuckers."

                •  IMO (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  supersoling, Alexander G Rubio

                  we need to reevaluate our liberal interventionist roots.

                  Yes, we have done many fine things in the human rights field and even in spreading the circle of liberty field.  And there is no reason to diminish those accomplishments.  But we must not herald them to the point of distortion.  

                  The same military might that enables us to race to Sumatra to aid tsunami victims, also drains money from our own children.  The same consensus about 'America's indispensibility' that permits our pols to put boots on the ground in Kosovo (or the Sudan) allows us to put boots on the ground in Falluja, and to drop bombs on Iran.  

                  Allowing your child to take the car to practice band or sports can make them a more rounded person and save you the time of driving them yourself.  But it also could lead to them drinking and driving and wrapping your car around a telephone pole.  

                  American politicians keep wrapping the car around a telephone pole, even though they occassionally do make it to their swimming class or to art school.  

                  What we need to do is recognize the problem.  We need to take the keys away until we can devise better safeguards against irresponsible steering of the ship of state.

                  First, we need Congress to reassert it's powers over war-making.  None of this unitary executive bullshit.  Then we need to forge a new consensus on which to base our foreign policy vis-a-vis other major powers.  And terrorism cannot be the main focus, like communism was.  They have tried it, but it isn't real.  We can't build a consensus around pre-emptive attacks based on a conjuction of WMD and terrorism by fixing the facts around the policy.  No one will go along with it and it will bankrupt the country.

                  Lastly, we do not need such a large military or such an indispensible role in the world.  Provoking terrorist attacks may allow this to remain political tenable for some time to come, but that doesn't make it right.  It's a self-fulfilling circle of death and violence that takes precious resources away from the needy and endangers all of humanity.  

                  So, color me not supporter of Kagan's they D's or R's.

                  •  Your analogy (0+ / 0-)

                    The correct analogy would be driving your child to the hospital after a gunshot wound or something like that (your negative analogy is a lot more horrible than your positive analogy is beneficial).  

                    There are definitely some things in the comment I sympathise with - Congress' sheep-like nature in asserting its war-making authority is embarrassing, and completely anti-thetical to the wise safeguards put in the Constitution.  I totally, completely agree with that.  And you are right that terrorism cannot be the main focus - it is not an existential threat like the Soviet Union was and that's the heart of the reason why it can never be as galvanising a force.  But I think it's precisely because we don't face an existential threat now we should seize the opportunity to help right many historic wrongs to ensure a more peaceful century than can be had otherwise.  The more we abandon our internationalist roots, the more we drift back toward a 'Fortress America' mindset that will cede the initiative to countries like China and Russia; as bad as we might have become, our human rights record is still a shining beacon compared to China and Russia.

                    I think because of this completely idiotic war maybe we're losing sight of the fact that America's role in the world does not need to be as expensive as it is.  You'll recall that one of the cornerstones of liberal internationalism is that while America must be the indispensible nation, we should always make common cause with the constellation of democracies who are our natural allies.  So while we should be prepared to bear any burden in the pursuit of freedom for all mankind, we shouldn't corner ourselves into doing so.  We should be smart about it and share the burden with our allies.

                    Maybe we will need another Kosovo-style success to win your confidence back - that's fair.  But you need to give us a chance and not draw away from the world.  The world cannot afford that anymore.

                    Give me liberty, or give me death!

                    by salsa0000 on Mon May 29, 2006 at 12:44:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  yes and no, and the DLC/NDC nexus (3+ / 0-)

                but on the major issues of conflict with the neocons--preemptive war, international cooperation vs unilateralism--the Democrats are more unified than a lot of people probably think.

                In theory, yes. But in practice, on Iraq, owing to opportunism, many Democrats (29 Senate Dems, and some 81 house Dems voted for IWR, Vs 21 Senate Dems, 126 House Dems Opposed) failed to summarily oppose preemptive and unilateral warfare. And very clear arguments against such a war were already laid out in crystal clear terms, you know by whom by then.

                So, who made them do it? That question leads to one inevitable answer: The DLC/NDC nexus

                Introducing NDC into the mix here sheds good light. The
                NDC ("New" Democrat Coalition) is the congressional arm of the DLC).

                The Senate version of it was founded by Joe Lieberman (CT), Evan Bayh (IN), Mary Laundrieu (LA), John Edwards (NC), John Breaux (LA), Chuck Robb (VA), Blanche Lambert Lincoln (AR), Bob Kerrey (NE) and Bob Graham (FL).

                Of these:

                1. Lieberman, Bayh, Laundrieu, Edwards, Breaux co-sponsored Lieberman's IWR (and voted for the essentially identical Hastert-Gephardt HJ 114). The other Dems to co-sponsor SJ46 were Max Baucus and Zell Miller both of whom appear to be DLC-brand too as I wrote in Sirota's thread.
                1. Lincoln did not co-sponsor, but voted Yea
                1. Graham voted against the IWR (he's a good guy).
                1. Kerrey, Robb were not in the senate
                1. Daschle did not co-sponsor S.J. 46, but was running around with his own S.J. 45, which was the whitehouse version of the resolution (Daschle seems to have strong DLC connection, but I don't have a link).

                On the house side, Gephardt, who was a DLC chair, of course co-authored (and co-sponsored) the Hastert-Gephardt's HJ 114, which was eventually passed.

                On the Iraq war, the Dems played hokie with the neocons, the whitehouse occupants.

                I suspect that it was Joementum who steamrolled the Dems into the supine position via the DLC channel, but the DLC/NDC connection is nakedly evident.

                •  Irrelevant to My Comment (0+ / 0-)

                  My comment addressed the difference between the Neocon predeliction for unilateralism, vs the broad Democratic consensus toward international coalitions.

                  And if you think Joementum has that much juice in the Democratic party...well, wow.  I'm flabbergasted.

                  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 05:59:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Response (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Alexander G Rubio

                    Fundamentalists (Neocons included) aside, very few people in their right minds would try to want to wage unilateral wars that'll cost billions to trillions of dollars and kill thousands of lives.

                    Even Bush didn't really want to, as prima facie evidence indicates. Why do you think he went back to the UN pretending to seek their ratification? What do you think Bush-I (the 41st pres.), who assembled a broad coalition for Gulf war might have told Bush-II (the 43rd whitehouse occupant) at the dinner table?

                    And from this clip posted elsewhere:

                    From Right Web profiles DLC dude Will Marshall
                    On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA-a wellspring of neoconservative strategy-to sign a letter to President Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall and others asked the president to "act alone if that proves necessary" and then, as a follow-up to a military-induced regime change in Iraq, to implement a democratization plan.

                    As you know, 2/25/03 was days before the hostilities commenced in Iraq.

                    Which proves my point that even Bush was reluctant to go for it with a thin excuse for a coalition he managed assemble for the invasion.

                    But, Bush went along anyway, apparently after being persauded the Neocon fundamentalists pushed him to do so.

                    And many Democrats such as Kerry and Edwards thought that he did the right thing (until the polls flipped on Iraq) during much of 2003.

                    Hence your point that only Neocons are to be blame for unilateralism is moot. The more pertinent question is, who are willing to be persuaded into unilateral (and unwarranted) warfare. Many Dems of the DLC/NDC membership are seem only willing (to further their career ambitions).

                  •  Joementum's influence (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Alexander G Rubio

                    And if you think Joementum has that much juice in the Democratic party...well, wow.  I'm flabbergasted.

                    You're making a blanket assumption that Joementum is the only junction between the Neocons and the Democratic party. I strongly suspect that he is the ring leader of that dynamic, but where is your proof that he is the only one?

          •  they are rather disfunctional academics (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Janet Strange

            and have made as many enemies there as in politics, because they're not really about reading books and debating things as much as keeping to their own, endowing chairs for each other, and announcing that they are in posession of the one Truth and thus are superior to their detractors, and above actual debate.

            actual graduate colloquiums tend to have far more open debates, and far more willing to challenge evidence and theory than the neocons. they're as clannish with their academic posisions and book deals and think tanks as they are with the lucrative government contracts

            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 09:30:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  It's a damned good thing they're in trouble (0+ / 0-)

        The PNAC is a pack of parasites that need to be discredited and possibly indicted.

      •  What is most disturbing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        about your take on this, and I think you are right, is that the neoconservatives have probably damaged the legitimate effort to spread democracy with their focus on pre-emptive unilateralism. Isolationism, which can be seen in the debate on immigration, could spread from the Republicans to the Democrats.

        •  The Problem is Unilaterlism (0+ / 0-)

          You're correct, we face the threat that the debate could focus on the supposed failure of internationalism instead of the actual failure of unilateralism.  But for domestic political reasons, I'm not too worried about the isolationist argument on immigration spreading to Dems.  The political advantage of a middle-ground approach is with the Dems, and the only real hostility to it is with conservatives.  It's not a wedge issue to be used against Democrats, it's a wedge issue to be used by Democrats.

          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 08:09:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The PROBLEM is Cheney/Rummie (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            isn't it?  If they're gone then their neocon and executive power ideas will die too.  

            We need both of them to retire... and the sooner the better!  Say a prayer because Cheney isn't in a good position right now, and I don't think Fitz will back off from calling him to testify unless some other strange thing happens!

    •  pretty big stretch? (8+ / 0-)

      The Will Marshall who runs the DLC think tank, "Progressive" Policy  Institute would not agree with you at all.

      In a January 2004 article titled "Stay and Win in Iraq," Marshall takes a blithely nationalist view of body counts in a war in which all but a small fraction of the dead are Iraqi civilians. "Coalition forces still face daily attacks but the body count tilts massively in their favor," boasts Marshall, a leading voice for the liberal hawks in the United States. (6)

      On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA-a wellspring of neoconservative strategy-to sign a letter to President Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq

      Marshall not only was not fired by the DLC after saying these things, he still works there now, providing it with foriegn policy 'expertise'.

      What I've shown is not inconsistent with HRC's known stand on the War on Iraq... but is inconsistent with "Far from supporting the PNAC worldview".

      You say that the DLC has no connection with PNAC positions?


      I think you need to research the DLC yourself, I think your perception of the DLC is shaped by wishful thinking.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:52:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Where's the conspiracy? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alexander G Rubio

      Suggesting that PNAC and the DLC have mutual interests is not the same as saying they are working together in secret to promote those interests. I believe the former, not the latter.

      But because I believe the former, I happen to think Booman's on to something. Only those beholden to an obsolete Democratic party could support much of what the DLC has done lo these many years. I think it is more wishful thinking than anything else to see these people as qualitatively different from those in PNAC.

      While I don't see the DLC signing any agreements with PNAC, I can easily see them adopting some of the principles as "necessary" in 21st century politics.

      -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 09:26:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great diary. The social (4+ / 0-)

    liberals Richard Perle and Jeane Kirkpatrick were among the original neoconservatives. So this isn't such a big surprise.

    Yet every time somebody on dKos complains, say, about the foreign policy commentary of H. Clinton or Biden and Bayh, they are blasted by posters who say that only Republicans should be attacked on this site.

    •  Not a big surprise (0+ / 0-)

      Gathering from what I know about the neoconservative movement, most of them were 'liberals' in the 1950s sense with a strong anticommunist bent.

      -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 05:50:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not most, some. And not really 'liberals' at ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ... all, but radicals.  The ones who ended up lip-locked with the PNAC were in it for the power all along.  As such they are authoritarian, and care not what party they hijack.

        Of course, that chips away at BooMan's point (that PNACers bound after death-dollars, and not death itself).  BooMan's point is not untrue, but I'd qualify by saying that PNACkery, like any confederation, has entwined but separable goals and adherents with different agendas.  At this point I have no idea who is guiding the PNAC.  It would seem that standing up in public, pointing to Iraq, and cheering "Attaboy!" is not something they are likely to do soon, or any time before the 2008 election.

        Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, & Rice lied to promote an illegal, aggressive war. Hague 'em!

        by Yellow Canary on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:43:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Richard Pearle (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluewolverine, Heterodoxie

      makes me throw up.  He is an arrogant bastard who wants war to be an everyday thing.  Everything I hear him say is jacked up.

      UGH... bomb Pearle and send him into retirement.

  •  Your fine diary illustrates what has. . . (10+ / 0-)

    . . .concerned me for a long time:  that, at bottom, the two parties--beholden as they both are to corporate interests--are only marginally different.

    Oh, for a new and truly progressive party, led by an inspired man or woman of the people, and willing to respect the Constitution! If the Democrats nominate Hillary in '08, methinks we'll have that splinter party in short order.

    The time is now. Damn it, the time is ALWAYS now!

    by PrairieCorrespondent on Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:50:09 PM PDT

    •  Shadow puppet theater (6+ / 0-)

      In Washington, your point about the marginal difference between Republicans and Democrats is becoming more true.  In many ways, the Republicans vs. Democrats show is one more stylized drama, akin to shadows of puppets on a screen in Balinese drama, brought to you by GE and NewsCorp, TimeWarner and Disney.  

      Fortunately, our vestigial democratic process still allows for some input from the Great Unwashed.  The Democratic party, if it is to become anything other than the traditional punching bags of the permanent ruling corporatist party, will have to breathe some of the energy from outside Washington in order to renew itself.

      If it cannot do so, we may have to resort to a new, true grassroots populist movement to save our democracy.  

      -4.50, -5.85 In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. --Orwell

      by Dallasdoc on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:29:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Al Gore (0+ / 0-)

      Could lead this new party, if he would.

  •  So long as Kagan means the 2108 election (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming, pico

    We've got room for him. :)

    Have you accepted Chuck Norris as your personal Lord and Savior? :)

    by cskendrick on Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:50:49 PM PDT

  •  Not a Good Sign (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dkmich, mediaprisoner, tjb22, dotsright

    This position is the ultimate cynicism.  Basically, the neocons will use whoever is in power to advance their position.

    And judging how easy it is to screen the media, take out the kneecaps of anyone with half a brain to see right through the newcons, they'll do it.

    Kind of like dealing with trolls here...  ;)

    We'll see you at Yearlykos!!!

    by InquisitiveRaven on Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:51:19 PM PDT

  •  I'm SHOCKED ! (8+ / 0-)

    I didn't know TNR still published??  (no, really)

    I don't know anyone who read them...and I used too.

    As for Kagan, he's just trying to save his own skin.  The fat cats who fund the "think tanks" are gonna be real pissed.  

    ...neocons worry that the real trouble for them could begin if President Bush is not reelected and, among conservatives, the finger-pointing begins -- in their direction.

    "Bush could end up looking like the worst president since Jimmy Carter because of Iraq, and people are going to say, 'You got us into this mess,' " said one Washington source who considered himself a neoconservative and spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It's going to be nasty and bitter and brutal."

    An antiwar group in Brussels created a shadow international tribunal that convicted the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative think tank founded by Kristol, for war crimes.

    "It's not fun to be accused of war crimes," said Gary Schmitt, the center's executive director.
    The Rise and Fall of the Neo-Con Reich

  •  People have to be very careful not to get (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, tjb22, JenThinks

    flattered by this sudden interest; these people are USERS. We often get in a tizzy when a Republican suddenly seems to take a position that we are taking; and both we and the media treat the Republican taking of the position as somehow more valuable.

    I don't want anything to do with this guy.

  •  What is the military-industrial complex? (29+ / 0-)

    Dwight Eisenhower, who made his bones fighting the Nazis, chose to warn us in his farewell speech about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex."  We in America have chosen to interpret this warning -- commendably remembered as it has been -- as meaning the defense industry and the Pentagon.

    But consider this warning from the perspective of a Nazi-fighter.  What were the Nazis?  Fascism is an alliance of corporate power and militarism to control the machinery of government.  The populace under such a government must be kept cowed into submission, and consent must be manufactured (in Chomsky's phrase) to perpetuate a state of war which permits the urge to freedom to be squelched by fear or nationalist aggression.

    Kagan is a representative of American imperialist interests, who have been ascendant in our politics since the Phillippine occupation.  Imperialism has been mutated in the 20th century into totalitarian strains (as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia) and corporatist strains, exemplified by the United States.  Both are essentially fascist.

    Imperialism has been the United States' primary foreign policy over the past century.  We do not seek to occupy territory (in the main) but to control events around the world to our benefit and our corporations' profit.  We have done it so long it no longer seems objectionable to us, as it must not have to most citizens of 19th-century Britain.  Robert Kagan exemplifies, and defends, this status quo.  

    If we are ever to regain the trust of the world, the soul of our democracy, and the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we must defeat the corporations and forswear imperialism.  Otherwise we will continue to be swallowed up by creeping fascism ... the Kabuki theater of politics in Washington notwithstanding.

    -4.50, -5.85 In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. --Orwell

    by Dallasdoc on Sun May 28, 2006 at 05:58:27 PM PDT

    •  Excellent comment! (0+ / 0-)

      Can you fashion this into a diary?  I'd love to read more!

      •  Thanks for the appreciation (13+ / 0-)

        I'm not normally a diarist, but have commented occasionally on the reality of America as a contemporary imperialist power.  If you think of us in this way, an awful lot of the history of the last century falls neatly into place.

        We were once a reluctant imperial power, belatedly following 19th-century fashion in the Phillippines, Hawaii and Latin America.  During and after WW II, however, we found a real taste for the enterprise, and the Cold War was essentially an imperialist struggle between two aspiring world dominators.  

        We won that struggle but found ourselves too enfeebled to carry out our ambitions.  Fortunately.  

        We tell ourselves comforting myths to excuse our subjugation of other peoples, much as the British did in the 19th century with the "White Man's Burden."  When you hear the phrase "freedom and democracy" in George Bush's lips, translate it as "pursuant to American imperial interests."  

        You will then have a much clearer idea of our true ambitions in the world.  And much of the world's negative reaction will make a hell of a lot more sense.

        -4.50, -5.85 In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. --Orwell

        by Dallasdoc on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:09:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      What Dallasdoc said, I agree entirely. No matter how fucked up things get, from Korea to Vietnam to Grenada, Somalia, Iraq, and onto Iran, we keep going down the same path, even though most of us have a lot of reservations about it.  Where are the leaders who will take us in a different direction?  Somehow, they don't get elected.

      Reality has a well-known liberal bias. --Colbert

      by MadScientist on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:07:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So very well said! (0+ / 0-)

      That just about sums it all up!


  •  If Dem=PNAC (5+ / 0-)

    It's time for the exodus.

    You can see photos and read the journal from my recent trip to Afghanistan here.

    by Sharon Jumper on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:26:57 PM PDT

  •  The system is corrupt. If they aren't corrupt (4+ / 0-)

    when they get elected, they are get corrupted shortly after.  The political process in this country is broken.  We have to fix it.  Public financing of elections is a good start.

    "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

    by dkmich on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:35:21 PM PDT

  •  There are some pretty GD big discontinuities... (5+ / 0-)

    in American foreign policy right now.  Exactly which Dem WH advocated "pre-emptive war?"  I somehow recall the Kennedy bros expressly rejecting it under much more difficult circumstances in '62.

    What a f'ing joke.  The nerve of these people--one party isn't enough for them, they must control 2.  They need to have both parties complicit in their dirty deeds.

    Sad thing is, there are far too many Dems (Biden, DiFi, and probably HRC, not to mention that guy from CT) who would go along w/ the Kaganesque world view.  We really need Lamont to throw a major scare into JoeMentum to cause a little re-thinking.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Sun May 28, 2006 at 06:42:58 PM PDT

  •  Please see this (8+ / 0-)

    diary about the BBC film The Power of Nightmares. It is three hours in length, but after you have seen it, much of the last five years will make more sense - not acceptable, but at least you will have a better understanding.

    I apologize for yet another plug for this series. Cheers.

  •  You hit the nail on the head this time booman (7+ / 0-)

    ...i have come around to the uncomfortable conclusion that Warner is indeed DLC material, mostly from prodding of kossacks who have called me out on my attempts at differentiation from the DLC.

    My point in bringing that up is because Dems as a whole want to win so bad that we might all tend to do what I started to do with Warner...

    And what's up with the whole primary situation?  Why in the HELL do so many people change who they support just because people in the previous state's primary picked a certain person?  we're all guilty of that to some extent...

  •  Back in the day, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tikkun, shpilk

    we call this the military-industrial complex.

  •  Yup. NeoCons want to take over Dems too. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    They've got toeholds and powerful ones. But as we see with Lieberman, they can be challenged and beaten. NeoCons won't go quietly if moderate voters don't start reading and understanding the issues and vote Progressively.

    Pay Attention America. Or there really won't be a choice next time.

  •  Most of this is nonsense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Reverse Bircher crap. I don't agree with some of the people you are criticizing, but insinuating that the DLC , TNR, Peter Beinart, judy Miller & the WAPO are somehow puppets controlled by some sinister individual is nonsense.

  •  to make the PNAC endorsement disappear, (6+ / 0-)

    all we have to do is nominate a non-DLC anti-war Democratic candidate for President, a few more solid progressives in the House and the Senate would help bury this as well. This would be a good thing, because we need a PNAC endorsement the way we "need" the Democrats endorsed by the KKK. Each group should be with its natural home, among the Goopers in both cases.

    The biggest difference between the two groups is that the PNAC has proved considerably more dangerous.

    What most people don't know is that PNAC influence has been part of the DLC from the very beginning, the head of the DLC tank, the "Progressive" Policy Institute, Will Marshall is a dedicated PNACer.

    In a January 2004 article titled "Stay and Win in Iraq," Marshall takes a blithely nationalist view of body counts in a war in which all but a small fraction of the dead are Iraqi civilians. "Coalition forces still face daily attacks but the body count tilts massively in their favor," boasts Marshall, a leading voice for the liberal hawks in the United States. (6)

    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

    by alizard on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:25:35 PM PDT

  •  Very troubling (0+ / 0-)

    Why was the phrase 'indispensible nation' put in quotes?  Are we really betraying our party's historic committment to liberal internationalism?  Are we forever going to trade away our party's greatest leaders: FDR, JFK, etc.?

    I've said it before and I'll say it again - this is why I hate George Bush so much.  He's taken our best rhetoric and ideals and made many on our side hate them.  Democrats used to be the party of 'bear any burden' - are you really telling me that our party is going to quit our principles?

    Give me liberty, or give me death!

    by salsa0000 on Sun May 28, 2006 at 07:36:41 PM PDT

  •  I am sorry but I just can't see any dummycrat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Epitome, Harkov311

    being taken in by these guys.
    Even the hawks know these guys have paper brains but no clue how to accomplish their goals successfully.
    Remember Hillary is hawkish because when Bill was President he had bad info on Iraq but remember he not only didn't act on it but turned down The PNAC people when they wrote him a letter asking him to do what W did.
    The truth is the best candidate for the democrats, people here would crucify -Bloomberg. They forget he only ran as a republican because he couldn't win democratic primary but he was a democrat before is pro choice, anti gun, anti the Bush bullshit science and has run a very difficult city. But I have a feeling he would have as much trouble here as in the south where being a Jew from New York is not a good thing.

  •  Screw the PNACers and their Neo-Con ponies (0+ / 0-)

    These pieces of excrement think they will make ready to abandon a sinking Republican ship if necessary and consolidate their gains and political power under the Democratic Party banner. More fools the Democratic Party leaderships If they allow these troublemakers any leeway or opportunity to continue their treasonous work behind a Democrat cover. They have made their bed with the Republican Party let them sleep in it.

  •  the 'indispensible nation' is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming, suskind

    the kinder, gentler way of controlling the world, a'la Clinton/Albright.

    It requires the existing the mil/ind complex. If this were to disappear overnight, the US economy would shred itself to bits {well, at least this is what they think}.

    Democrats can get wound up into militarism; look the struggles Kennedy had internally, and of course Johnson with Vietnam.

    But overall, I trust Democrats more than brainless agenda {theocracy} driven Republicans.

    At least, I think I do. Someone slap me and wake me up in 2009, and ask me again if I do.  

    "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus"
    Nasty, freshly-demoted
    -7.63, -9.

    by shpilk on Sun May 28, 2006 at 08:55:13 PM PDT

  •  As usual Booman, your grasp (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming, Torta, Dallasdoc

    of the Washington power struggle astounds me as well as educates me!

  •  PNAC is looking for plan B (6+ / 0-)

    Having run the country into the ground, they are leaving the Republican party like rats leaving a sinking ship. The DLC is their plan B. They want to co-opt the Democratic party the same way they co-opted the British Labor party.

  •  Any Winger Who Says the Dems Should Win in '08... (0+ / 0-) essentially acknowledging that things are so horribly messed up that whoever "wins" in '08 is going to be saddled with the impossible task of repairing things.  I heard Kristol espouse the view that the Dems should win in '06 and perhaps '08, but what I really heard him say was - we're going to let these clowns "win" so when they can't clean up the mess we've made, we can prove once and for all that their ideology is flawed, sealing the deal for the neocon reich to last a thousand years.

    I'm not quite ready to believe the horrific premise that there's no difference between the two parties and that the PNAC is perfectly happy to exploit either one to achieve their aims.  These are neocons at heart, and they want to be able to beat their breasts and say, "We won and you lost!"

    I really hope that Booman's premise is an inaccurate interpretation of PNAC's motivation for recent comments.

  •  Misleading title (0+ / 0-)
    I fail to see where he "endorses Dems in '08".  If this is an endorsement, it's the weakest one I've ever seen.  He didn't say he thinks it "will be" better with Dems in power.  He said it "might be".  He's just trying to pretend that he'll still be relevant when the Democrats come to power.  He's mistaken.

    Sure, the Democrats are going to be tough on national security.  That means they're not going to listen to idiots like Kagan.  For that matter, I don't think we here at Daily Kos should be listening to him either.

  •  The War Party must always win (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Or they will drive you from office.

    Kennedy? (depends how conspiratorial you feel)
    Johnson? (when he became politically wounded, dropped out of the race)
    Gary Hart? (a critic? they hunted him down... and his own hubris did the rest)
    Nixon? (he always said it was an inside job that did him in... someone had to take the fall for losing Vietnam... though his fall was a lot more complicated, and mixed in with heavy-handed anti-democratic tactics, and something about a completely illegal war in Cambodia)
    Carter? (labelled too soft, the big money went to Reagan)
    Clinton? (deemed as safe a Democrat as they could allow, got too uppity and he was scandal-mongered to death... and again, his own hubris didn't help)
    Bush? (If he becomes too great a liablity, they will get someone else)

    We must stop PNAC from getting any influence in the Democratic Party!

    "Existence is a flame which constantly melts and recasts our theories." -- R.D. Laing

    by Valtin on Sun May 28, 2006 at 11:14:54 PM PDT

  •  interventionist (0+ / 0-)

    Unfair to paint interventionist dems as being dlc only.  

    There are plenty of progressive interventionists.  The difference is that we prefer diplomacy.

    I wrote a diary on this a while back.  You should check it out, it makes this clear.  Neocons are bombs-first interventionists.  

    DLC isn't interventionist or isolationist.  They're pro-business and pro-free-trade.

    Check out my podcast of piano improvisations.

    by tunesmith on Sun May 28, 2006 at 11:22:01 PM PDT

  •  that explains how they can call themselves (0+ / 0-)

    "non-partisan" think-tanks.

    One one level, it's honest - they want to rule regardless of political party.

    Of course, they and we know perfectly well that their strongest support is on the GOP side, and that they are not impartial by any means, so the use of the word "non-partisan" is just a bit of Orwellian disinformation there.

    "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

    by bellatrys on Mon May 29, 2006 at 03:50:12 AM PDT

  •  Thank You, For This... (0+ / 0-)

    This needed saying and you said so well.

    Some of us still need a few dots connected from time to time.

    Trying to focus on any one horror these days is like trying to do a fecal exam in a flying crap storm.

    You are doing a true patriot's work by dragging these monsters out into the daylight.

    I think you are absolutely right.

    We are dealing with true believers. The TheoCons, whom we have all had a gut full of lately, and the NeoCons, who, rather than get on television an say goofy things like, "may the Lord kill off a few Supreme Court Justices," they prefer to slink around the back corriders of capitol Hill and the White House, not to mention Foggy Bottom and Langley and a few other stops around Our City.

    Yep, they are found in a number of think tanks, and they cause my skin to crawl, every time I read something or hear a speech by one of them.

    These are the people of false opposites.

    Invasion, chaos, death or Saddam. My personal favorite.

    We should put up wanted posters of all of these guys all over the United States.

    Wanted for Coosspiracy to commit War Crimes.

    Wanted for grand theft and defrauding the U.S. tax payer.

    Wanted for using the U.S. treasury and campaign coffrers to launder money.

    Wanted for running a protection racket out of Washington D.C.

    I'm not just talking about the Bushites here. It is about the corporatists. It's about the money worshippers.

    Funny thing about monsters. In the daylight, their scales fall and their teeth fall out.

    The DLCers are just the puppets, as well as the GOPers.

    The ones whom we need to see, are their miesters. They really need to be front and center.

    My Guru once said, "what you hear in darkness, say in the light."

    Now is as good a time as any.

    Hope you don't mind if I post a link to this on my blog...

    When fascism comes to America, it will come draped in the flag and carrying a cross

    by TDW on Mon May 29, 2006 at 05:58:17 AM PDT

  •  not simply interventionism (0+ / 0-)

    it's zionist interventionism.

    PNAC has no interest in enforcing the UN's creation of the nation oof palestine, or of threatening israel with military action if israel does not join the NPT and permit the IAEA to inspect her nuclear weapons program.

  •  My facts may be a little squichy, but... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dallasdoc, Alexander G Rubio

    These opinion leaders consider America to be the 'indispensable nation' and they consider it vital to world peace and security that America maintain its role in the world. For example, it's critical that we maintain military bases from Okinawa, to Tashkent, to Kandahar, to Baku, to Turkey, Baghdad, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Dubai, to Eritrea. From the outside, it looks like they benefit from their association or investments in the companies that do business in those countries, or the companies that arm our military to defend themselves in foreign lands and equip our home defenses to protect against the resentment our occupations cause. But, from the inside, it's more complicated. It's about the evils of communism, or fascism, or Islamo-fascism, or whatever is required as a rhetorical tool next week.

    I have a friend, well versed in history, who says our nation was never meant to have a standing army. A well-regulated militia, yes, but not a professional army based around the world. We have done more harm than good by keeping bases all over the world with which to interfere in others' business at will.
    To me, this nation would be more effective if we used peaceful means to achieve our (supposed) goals of Freedom and Democracy. In stead of propping up every two-bit dictator who'll kiss our ass so corporations can then screw those countries, we would tell them that unless they play by our rules, they don't get to play in the world community. And by "our rules" I mean the ones we tell everyone we play by, like healthy competition, fairness, justice for all, etc. (Of course, we've probably lot that chance since Bush has .)
    I, for one, am sick and tired of what is being done in my name. I'm tired of oil companies stealing the resources of other countries (water's next you know), or minerals. I'm tired of the food congolmerates (aided and abbeted by the good ol USA government) who force nations to use their GMO products or starve.
    In short, if we're serious about being the good guys, it's time we acted like it. PNAC isn't about that, it's only goal is global donmination. And they've actually pretty much achieved that.
    for a real eye-opener, if you haven't done so already, read Confessions Of An Economic Hitman. It'll tell you all you need to know about who is really running things, why so many in the world hate us, and why events like 9-11 happen.

    All Truth is non-partisan

    by MA Liberal on Mon May 29, 2006 at 06:20:09 AM PDT

  •  PNAC IS FROZEN SNAKE (0+ / 0-)

    Excellent analysis of Kagan's real motives. PNAC and the other thugs of the military-industrial complex need government funds to prevail. Hence the olive branch to the democrats.But beware. A Japanese proverb warns about bringing frozen snakes a.k.a. PNAC indoors.

  •  Excellent and Important Diary! (0+ / 0-)

    thanks for posting, Booman, as I had not heard this.

    If that surprises you, you haven't been paying attention


    let's please remember the PNAC cabal has been around for a long time, and they presented their "plan" (I use the term loosely) to President Clinton:

    1. In 1998, PNAC unsuccessfully lobbied President Clinton to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. The January letter from PNAC  urged America to initiate that war even if the U.S. could not muster full support from the Security Council at the United Nations. Sound familiar? (President Clinton replied that he was focusing on dealing with al-Qaida terrorist cells.)

    In other words, Clinton told them to take a hike because he was focusing on ACTUAL al Qaida terrorist cells-- which was exactly what he needed to do-- and he knew loudmouth macho man Hussein was being kept in check by U.S. and British forces which were enforcing the northern and southern no-fly zones in Iraq.

    this is where the insistence there's a huge difference between the dems and the repuglicans falls flat and loses all credibilty: if in fact there is Pax Americana oilgarchical policy which overarches everything else, and democrats and repuglican leadership both support this-- then there's clearly no difference between the two parties.

    The democrats MUST reject this bullshit. it doesn't appear that HRC or even Obama does reject it.

    "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath.... You can't ask for better than that." Fadel Gheit

    by Superpole on Mon May 29, 2006 at 07:24:27 AM PDT


      Clinton had NATO as cover but NATO would have not done anything if U.S. didn't contribute. Kosovo was not a threat to America.Cheney lobbied Clinton directly from Halliburton about Camp Bondsteel. It turned out to be the protype for what followed in the explosion of war contractors. PNAC founders noticed that Americans didn't fuss with Kosovo so why not take it a step further with the fouding of PNAC and preemptive wars. PNAC was founded shortly after Kosovo.

      •  EASY-- (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Phoenix Woman

        Clinton had NATO as cover but NATO would have not done anything if U.S. didn't contribute.

        I don't agree, but this is not the main point here.

        explosion of war contractors? please. you need to delve further into U.S. history here. 45 years ago, departing President Dwight Eisenhower warned of the dangers of "the U.S. military industrial complex".

        the "explosion of war/defense contractors" started then, not "after Kosovo".

        NATO put a stop to the nationalistic/genocidal Milosevich problem precisely as it was supposed to-- with a joint effort of first world NATO member nations.

        you can hardly compare this to the British/U.S. invasion and long term occupation of Iraq-- which included nominal involvment by and almost zero political/economic support from NATO member nations.

        you'll have to go back to the first Gulf War (Hussein's invasion of Kuwait) to find a truly comparable effort regarding NATO in Yugoslavia.

        the difference here (I'm surprised you don't know this) is that NATO EU nations are not going to allow genocide again on the EU continent. to be sure, it went on too long before they stopped it, but they did stop it.

        In Iraq, however, so called Christians in the U.S. don't really care that innocent men, women and children are being killed on a daily basis-- simply because they are NOT caucasian Christians. if they were, you can be assured the outrage in the U.S. would be much more significant.

        "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath.... You can't ask for better than that." Fadel Gheit

        by Superpole on Mon May 29, 2006 at 08:35:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We probably agree on more than we disagree BUT... (0+ / 0-)

          The fact remains that America was not threaten by events in Kosovo no matter how regrettable those facts were. It was an European duty . Being part of organized groups, NATO, does not make the deed necessarily valid or worthwhile.

          •  Depends on Your Definition of (0+ / 0-)


            the members of the U.S. congress prior to WW II did not think Hitler was a threat to the U.S. and vigorously fought to keep the U.S. out of that war-- oddly, the ones fighting the hardest were republicans.

            after Hitler's near successful take over of Europe and Russia, it's astonishing you would think the U.S. would stand by and do nothing about the thug Milosevich. wasn't NATO formed precisely to deal with future Hitler's like Milosevich?

            I think you'll agree there are different types of threats-- military, economic, social, etc.

            BTW, to address your earlier point re: the formation of the PNAC in 1997-- yes, that's true. however, the founding members have all been involved in politics for decades, and most of them, if not all, were involved in politics during the 1973 Arab OPEC oil embargo.

            their ideology and plan started then, and culminated with Hussein falling out of favor with the powers that be in the U.S. when he signed deals with Russian and EU oil companies and moved to value Iraq's oil reserves in Euros instead of dollars (the same as Iran is currently doing).

            That spelled the end for Hussein and his thugs. however, IF had signed those deals with Bechtel, ExxonMobile, BP, Halliburton, etc., he and his sons would still be running Iraq today and they'd all be very wealthy men.

            "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath.... You can't ask for better than that." Fadel Gheit

            by Superpole on Mon May 29, 2006 at 09:26:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Good Judgement. That's the goal. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              The difference between reacting to a philosophical threat or a real threat of war takes judgement.Preemptive war is not a defensible position. Isolationist policies in general are a better foreign policy. Searching for perfection in a worldly governing body opens up the possibilities of the mishief of empire and nation-building or the bad judgement of doing things because you can not because you should. The people at Bechtel, Halliburton, Exxon Mobil etc are not isolationists.

      •  Clinton wanted to do what he couldn't in Rwanda.. (0+ / 0-)

        ...stop a genocide in progress.

        Clinton didn't intervene in Rwanda (which to this day is his biggest regret) because the Republicans in Congress wouldn't let him -- he was forced by them to pull out of Somalia, ending the mission GHW Bush had started, and they weren't going to let him put boots on the ground anywhere else. (That's why he was forced to use only air power in Kosova -- because the GOP-controlled Congress wouldn't authorize ground troops.)

  •  'These opinion leaders' == selfish weenies (0+ / 0-)

    These guys are basically childish weenies. They're afraid of the world and they see it as full of imagined and potential enemies who must be fought "it's us or them". That's a very dark view and if people fall for their view it becomes self perpetuating. It's what George Orwell wrote about.

    There's an equally valid way to look at the world which offers much more to everyone.

    It's this: The world is full of friends or potential friends and we have much to offer them and them to us.

    If we cooperate to solve common problems we can make the world a nicer and better place for everyone. Instead of acting like children and grabbing what we want and maybe destroying it for everyone in the process there are countless ways to solve problems in friendly ways.

    It's almost like these fools see the common good as their greatest enemy. Just like selfish little kids.

  •  coopting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The PNAC is beginning to realize that their New Pearl Harbor didn't radicalize us enough to fulfill their global ambitions.  A significant and growing number of people refuses to live in fear of each other and non existent terrorists.  To build a world empire fast, everybody needs to get with the program.  We all need to be committed fascists so to speak.  In allowing democrats to share in power they will get a taste of Empire Building and may get hooked.  They will be made full partners in crime.  Democrats have been quite cooperative so far anyway, a 'promising' sign.  Also once they have blood on their fingers themselves, Democrats will be less willing to look seriously at how this all began: PNACs' New Pearl Harbor.

  •  My foreign policy (0+ / 0-)

    America, because it already has a bloated defense budget it doesn't know what to do with, should intervene militarily only to prevent genocide.  From a cost-benefit perspective, this is the one area where we are almost assured to do more good than harm.

    We suck at nation-building.  We suck at being sensitive to foreign cultures.  But we're pretty good at bombing the crap out of bad guys with minimal losses under competent leadership (as in Kosovo).  In the case of Sudan, I would advocate  air strikes against the Janjaweed followed by complete disengagement and letting the Red Cross take over humanitarian efforts.  The last thing we need is a heavy American bootprint in another oil-rich Muslim country.

    Japan and Germany's reconstruction was 60 years ago and their populations were educated, relatively ethnically homogenous and had a history of democracy.  I see little hope in trying to apply a sort of Marshall Plan to Iraq or Afganistan.  From a more abstract perspective, it also helps national pride if a country can sort out its own troubles.

    Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.

    by Cream Puff on Mon May 29, 2006 at 09:11:48 AM PDT

  •  With friends like that who needs enemies? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    -4.63,-3.54 If the people will lead the leaders will follow

    by calebfaux on Mon May 29, 2006 at 10:14:31 AM PDT

  •  Check this analysis out for a slighty different (0+ / 0-)

    perspective on why the establishment foreign policy "realists" and corproate types are abandoning Bush and the radical Neo-Cons:

    The US's geopolitical nightmare

  •  The Neo-Cons are toast (0+ / 0-)

    The "realist" foreign policy establishment is terified that Bush Doctrine has alientated the world and driven control of mideast energy resources (and lon grun supply contracts and US currency petro-dollars) to emergent competitors: China, India, Russia, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

    Kagan is seeking to limit the damage to PNAC/Neo-Con credibilty and coopt the "realist" reform that is certain to occur.

    The same dynamic is at play in recent efforts by right wing fundamentalists to try to claim that low Bush poll numbers are due to disenchantment of the right wind conservative base.

    Both camps know that their credibilitty and policy agenda have been discredited.

    So both camps are now trying to spin media, coopt and intimidate the Dems, seeking to trim their sails and limit the leftward swing of the pendulum that is sure to occur in 06 and 08.

  •  isms are not good (0+ / 0-)

    One of the most devastating intellectual avatars that keep people from thinking on a realistic level is the idealism that binds together any sort of cohesive worldview.

    Eventually the self interest of pursuing any kind of paradigm shift in balancing power  gravitates to whatever means can help the idea become reality.  So much so that the ends MULTIPLY the means, which
    usually complicates the goals of any even well intentioned movement. (Not-withstanding any judgements of the RIGHT worldview or the WRONG one)

    I think one of the potential strenghts that can bind all sorts of idealogies together is the continual erosion of the fear and ignorance people have of a liberal agenda.

    One major way is to keep defining these groups and thier actions enough so that they become part of some fraction of the population's perception of the world.

    The more people hear of them, the more they can begin to understand the way think tanks, special interest groups, and lobbyists have effectively eliminated the electorate from much of the equation.

    That smacks of elitism, and everyone except the elite themselves hate that. That needs to happen gradually, but it needs to happen.

    If not,  we will continue to live in a world secretly run by secret groups with secret tools to secretly control the whole damn thing.  Right now the whole game is how to sell whatever they need to sell to the people. This is the medias job, and they will continue to sell mop n' glow no matter which party runs the government.

    The whole thing sounds like a two-episode X-Files.

    The public will respond with thier remotes and browsers when thier interest is piqued. That is money in the bank for the media.

    Keep people talking like they are beginning to, and we can change the agenda.  

    I just wish it would come sooner than it probably will.

skybluewater, Sharoney, racerx, bink, shari, maryb2004, DeminNewJ, chrississippi, tgs1952, CJB, pb, radish, Ben P, Fiat Lux, mkinny, laurak, leftcoast, JustWinBaby, bob in ny, No Preference, tikkun, eraske, GreenSooner, jimpol, Pen, Gooserock, Unstable Isotope, saraswati, emal, Susan Gardner, MikeHickerson, Robespierrette, Wise Woman, Stoy, wu ming, LynChi, m maddog, Wintermute, SanJoseLady, meg, LEP, weathercoins, Troutfishing, Dan Hrkman, xynz, recentdemocrat, HarveyMilk, grndrush, bumblebums, givmeliberty, technopolitical, mrfleas, shermanesq, NoisyGong, Boston Boomer, think2004, super simian, TracieLynn, powerplay40, macdust, wonkydonkey, nyceve, SecondComing, OCD, Baldwiny, ask, PsiFighter37, bluesteel, wanderindiana, themank, obgynlover, IndigoBlues2, Glic, scamp, roses, chechecule, Frederick Clarkson, Seemabes, murphsurf, drsmith131, LondonYank, Spud1, itskevin, PeteZerria, thingamabob, ctsteve, Gonzophile, Cedwyn, antirove, Alna Dem, CocoaLove, bato, Tomtech, cap and gown, hhex65, Barbara Morrill, SlowToAnger, Dallasdoc, realitybased, missliberties, Nancy in LA, hoolia, AL Depansu, niteskolar, DriftawayNH, lecsmith, lcrp, Anne from Vermont, dkmich, walkshills, AllisonInSeattle, mattes, Redbug, Man Eegee, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, Mosquito Pilot, Steven D, HK, rickeagle, kd texan, eve, boran2, Timroff, Shapeshifter, ck4829, chimpwatch, supersoling, machiado, Sherlock Google, Duke1676, mediaprisoner, DCleviathan, farleftcoast, deano, ManOnTheBench, Alexander G Rubio, PDiddie, ichibon, coloradobl, LarisaW, town, baccaruda, unclejohn, chinook, subtropolis, bluewolverine, Alice Marshall, ignorant bystander, PBen, Militarytracy, ejmw, Superpole, rjo, Valtin, ChemBob, stitchmd, Jared Lash, Sophie Blue, boofdah, NeuvoLiberal, suskind, NLinStPaul, majcmb1, civil society, deliciae, RB in Pgh, EconAtheist, Gegner, annefrank, evilpenguin, Warren Terrer, PrairieCorrespondent, dspivak, calebfaux, JenThinks, collapse, neroden, wiscmass, dem4evr, landreau, bebacker, Brian B, proudprogressiveCA, Land of Enchantment, RainyDay, makeitstop, martini, trashablanca, Compound F, ama, bdmac, tac gman, a gnostic, Wary, carolita, TalkieToaster, jguzman17, vome minnesota, Glorfindel, Rachel in Vista, ekruegr, WorldCantWait, armadillo, CTLiberal, Preston S, nicodk, MarciaJ720, gabriella, jedinecny, Southern Son, vtpeace, BB10, NJwlss, Craig Burnham, DBunn, bigchin

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site