They're BAAACCK!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

I noticed today that the "Committee on the Present Danger" had a full-page ad in the NY Times (p. A9). What a flashback!

Those of you who were already big Dems in the 1980s will recall The Committee on the Present Danger as a bunch of hawkish talking heads who kept yelling "The Russians are coming!" and urged building enough nukes to blow up the world 15 times instead of only 5 times.

Now they're pushing for more Pentagon spending again, only this time it's for fighting that scary-sounding but amorphous threat known as "terrorism." (Which is a tactic, not a unified movement.)

The cast of characters is almost exactly the same, with a few old Dangerous Committee members having gone on to their...reward, and a couple of new Dangerous Committee members having signed on with the Dark Side.

Kenneth Adelmann, Midge Decter, Max Kampelman, Jack Kemp, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Edwin Meese, Laurie Mylroie, Ben Wattenberg, and a host of others, including our old friend, Joe Lieberman. Doesn't it just take you back to the "good old days" of the Reagan administration?

[Solly Mack]

1. good gawds..it really is the reagan years all over again

[libhill]

2. BUT BUT BUT

I thought Raygun was in hell, uh, I mean dead?

[Solly Mack]

3. it's the after-taste...it just keeps going and going

[Karenina]

5. EEEEWWWWWWW!!!!

Who's got the Pepto Bismal?

[Solly Mack]

6. I know. I know.

[dmr]

4. Good catch, Lydia - Guess who's an honorary chairman?

Yup, I remember them, and frankly I don't think they ever went away, they just remained quietly in the background. They love to instill fear and line their pockets from all that Pentagon spending. Most likely they are part of PNAC. I just did a quick Google and found an article in the Washington Post this past Monday (the 19th):

The Present Danger

By Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl
Tuesday, July 20, 2004; Page A17

- snip -

The liberation of Iraq has important implications for the region and for the broader war on terrorism. The leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties have so far stood firm in their commitment to finish the job in Iraq and to fight to victory the war on terrorism. But that bipartisan consensus is coming under growing public pressure and could fray in the months ahead. Although the tide is turning in the war on terrorism, a political undertow in this country could wash out our recent gains. We must not let this happen.

To make sure it doesn't, we are relaunching today the Committee on the Present Danger, a group of citizens of diverse political persuasions who will work to sustain and strengthen bipartisan support for the war on terrorism in Iraq and beyond.

The Committee on the Present Danger was first formed at the dawn of the Cold War in 1950 to educate Americans about the growing threat of Soviet communism. Democratic senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson of Washington state revitalized the group in the mid-'70s; this time it was focused on working for a stronger stance toward the Soviets and the increased defense spending necessary to carry out that policy.

- snip -

True to its history, the reborn Committee on the Present Danger will advocate strong policies both against international terrorists and their sponsors and in favor of freedom and security...

more ...

Joe Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut. Jon Kyl is a Republican senator from Arizona. They are honorary co-chairmen of the Committee on the Present Danger.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63067-2004Jul19.html

Check this link out: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/cpd.php

Edit: To add second link.

[htuttle]

7. A friend of mine was once arrested for spitting on Scoop Jackson

I'll always respect him for that.

[mmonk]

8. my earlier post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2034150&mesg_id=2034150

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. Glad to see they're so well remembered

I'd almost forgotten about Scoop Jackson.

[LittleApple81]

10. I vote for sending Midge to Iraq as a soldier. She is so mean she

probably could win the war on her own.

[rlev1223]

11. Careful with Kirkpatrick....

I have it on very good authority that if you say her name
three times out loud, your eyes will melt. Also if you look at her picture.

[RichM]

12. Sorry, but the Dem candidate does not support cuts in military spending.

Therefore, it may be inferred that he basically agrees with The Committee on the Present Danger. Furthermore, if Sen. Lieberman has signed on, it may be anticipated that Sen. Kerry will sign on, because wherever Lieberman goes, Kerry soon follows.

Therefore, your post is in very poor taste on a Democratic Party message board. You are expressing skepticism about a view that in all likelihood is held by the Democratic standard bearer (who is infallible, in case you didn't know). This is no longer permissible behavior. Consider yourself notified.

FYI - it is permissible to sound snarfy about the CPD insofar as it reflects Republican paranoia & wasteful Pentagon spending. Democratic paranoia about terrorism & wasteful Democratic Pentagon spending is, however, an entirely different matter. It is prudent, it is realistic, and above all, it's a smart strategy to win over moderate votes. Therefore, one must refer to it respectfully & approvingly, at all times.

[NJCher]

13. We need to be in Iraq

Yeah, that's what he said on TV last night. He said we needed to be there and the difference between the way he'd do it and the way bush is doing it is that he'd be smart about it.

I don't know who it was on this board that said this but they surely echoed my sentiments when they said they are going to have to fight like hell to get bush out. Then when Kerry gets in, they're going to have to fight like hell to get Kerry to a more enlightened position.


Cher