As of right now, the DLC is more my enemy than the Republicans

[Walt Starr]

Case in point, they hire a muckety muck in the Christian Coalition:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=253075

"I had my own experience with being thrust out into the political cold and then participating in a stunning comeback. Having served in the George H.W. Bush administration, I found myself unemployed after Bill Clinton's victory in November 1992 -- a difficult time to be an unemployed Republican, because Washington was completely in the grip of the Democrats. Consequently, I became creative in my job search and gained a position as the legislative director of the Christian Coalition. When I began my new position with the religious conservatives, I thought I could not be farther away from the locus of power in Washington. Little did I know, I was to be part of an extraordinary political insurgency that has now made the Capitol a bastion of conservative and Republican hegemony."

These bastards are out to destroy the Democratic Party and the sooner we realize that and dump their sorry asses, the better the party will be.

[Tinoire]

1. You must not want to win Walt.

How can you not like a guy who gave his Conservativereform.org as his e-mail address to CNN (May 7, 2001)?

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:-l3mkdY-zecJ:edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0105/07/ip.00.html+%22Marshall+Wittmann%22&hl=en


Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and one of the nation's most quoted analysts on political and congressional issues. He specializes in the growing role of the independent voter.

Prior to joining the Institute, Wittmann held notable positions in government and private institutions. In the private sector, he served as the Heritage Foundation's director of congressional relations both for the U.S. House and Senate. Wittmann also served as the Christian Coalition's director of legislative affairs. In the Bush Administration, he served as the deputy assistant secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services. Wittmann also was the legislative representative with the National Association of Retired Federal Employees and a public affairs specialist with the National Treasury Employees Union. He holds both his bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Michigan.

(snip)

http://pewforum.org/events/0410/wittmanbio.htm


=====

Also a Sr Fellow at the PPI since Sept 22, 2004:

Marshall Wittmann
Senior Fellow

Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Previously, he was Director of Communications for Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Mr. Wittmann has served in various positions with the Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, Christian Coalition, and in the administration of President George H. W. Bush.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112&contentID=252919

=====

Think Tanks in America


Think Tanks Political Orientation

Conservative

Heritage Foundation
American Enterprise Institute
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Hudson Institute
Hoover Institution
Progress and Freedom Foundation
Manhattan Institute
Competitive Enterprise Institute
International Institute for Strategic Studies
Family Research Council
National Center for Policy Analysis



Libertarian

Reason Foundation
Cato Institute


Center-Right

Washington Institute for Near East Policy
RAND Corporation


Centrist

Brookings Institution
Carnegie Endowment
Institute for International Economics
Carter Center
Aspen Institute
Milken Institute
National Bureau of Economic Research
Council on Foreign Relations
Freedom Forum
Economic Strategy Institute
Progressive Policy Institute
Public Policy Institute of California



Center-Left

Urban Institute

Progressive

Citizens for Tax Justice
Justice Policy Institute
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Center for Public Integrity
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
Worldwatch Institute
Center for Defense Information
Institute for Policy Studies
Economic Policy Institute

[Walt Starr]

3. Because he worked for the vile Christian Coalition

If I wanted to vote for this shit, I'd vote Republican.

If it comes with the DLC label, it's righwing Republican shit. I ain't buying what these assholes are selling.

[Tinoire]

12. I just thought I'd be the first one to get that one in

;)

Just did a little googling on the man. YUCK! This was one of Ralph Reed's right hand men.

I just love the way he turns up in google!

Example:

Dems' control won't put Clinton in power - 06/12/01
... More significantly for Clinton, Sen. ... "Bob Byrd will be her best friend," says Marshall
Wittmann, a Republican analyst at the conservative Hudson Institute.
www.detnews.com/2001/politics/0106/12/a04-235140.htm - 26k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages


Zogby International
... Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow with the Democratic Leadership Council, said
Clinton's reputation as a polarizing figure isn't necessarily a liability. ...
www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10443 - 12k - Cached - Similar pages


On edit: Amazing. So many of the sites with info on his former activities are either blocking or wiped clean.

There was something I really wanted to read ( http://www.conservativereform.org/nationalgreatness/brooks2-24.cfm) because of this reference at antiwar.com

THE MOOSEKETEERS
It already has a head, not only in Kristol, but in a semi-official thinktank, the "Project for Conservative Reform" (PCR), the brainchild of the ubiquitous Marshall Wittmann. How is it that one ostensibly "conservative" pundit can get so many citations in the Washington Post? He even beats Kristol's previous record. This is one "conservative" the liberals love to quote. The PCR website is adorned with a logo that affixes the image to Reagan to that of Teddy Roosevelt, and, although the content manages to combine the worst of both, clearly Wittmann identifies with the latter more than the former. He writes a column called "The Bull Moose" in which he excoriates the Republicans for stubbornly resisting the call to embrace his program of big government "national greatness," refers to himself as "the Moose," and calls his (few but loyal) readers "Mooseketeers." Isn't that cute?

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j060401.html

but the site http://www.conservativereform.org , which Wittman admitted to being with has been totally wiped dry.

anyway still checking this guy out. Strange stuff:

3. The New Republic reported that Karl Rove's staffer Tim Goeglein called Hudson about Marshall Wittmann, who subsequently left Hudson, a government funded think tank, under mysterious circumstances.

(snip)
8. Around March 2001, Goeglein called Hudson to complain about criticisims of the administration which Marshall Wittmann, then a Hudson senior fellow had written on the website of his “conservative reform project,” which listed Bill Kristol on its stationery as co-director. Curt Smith, then Hudson VP, took the call and relayed the complaint to Wittmann, who then told petitioner and Ken Weinstein about it, emphasizing that Goeglein bore him a particular animus because of the 2000 presidential campaign when Wittmann was an outspoken supporter of Senator John McCain.

9. Not long after TNR reported Goeglein’s call, Curt Smith who took the call was fired. Marshall Wittmann, whose leisurly days petitioner personally observed since his office was adjacent to him, subsequently left Hudson to work for Senator McCain. Asked about this by petitioner, Wittmann professed nearly total amnesia regarding the events of 2001 and threatened the petitioner with the Capitol Police when pressed on the matter. Hudson VP Ken Weinstein was equally informative. Evan Gahr: Why did Marshall Wittmann give up his cushy job at Hudson for the hustle and bustle of Capitol Hill? Ken Weinstein:

10. Wittmann, of course, is not the only Jew who embarassed the White House and subsequently left the government-subsidized think tank, with obvious incentive to do what’s necessary to maintain the good graces of Karl Rove, under mysterious circumstances.

(snip)

http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/evan_gahr.htm

Weird stuff!

[imenja]

2. understanding your "enemy"

Don't you think it's a good idea to hire someone with insight into the other side? It will likely help with political strategy.

I'm sure the Republicans are thrilled you have declared the DLC your number one enemy. If enough voters think as you do, the Right's grip on power can be maintained indefinitely.

Might I suggest that you formulate and voice the principles you see as most essential to the party rather than focusing on whose "sorry asses" you want "dumped"? That way you could have a positive influence on the direction the party takes.

[Walt Starr]

4. If enough people buy into the PNAC rightwing agenda of theDLC

The Republicans are the de facto winners.

[imenja]

5. hatred wins, as usual

Why bother thinking of solutions when you can foment hatred? Far too many liberals share with the right the same qualities of hatred and intolerance. Add to our side a poverty of ideas. No wonder we lose.

[Walt Starr]

6. Pulling out the "hatred" canard

So original.

:eyes:

[imenja]

9. Ok

I'd love to hear something original or productive from you. Please.
Is it possible to think about the direction you want the party to take? Put your outrage to good use. We badly need ideas.

[Walt Starr]

16. So exposing the fact that a PNAC Christian Coalition member

is working for the DLC isn't productive.

Yeah

Right

:eyes:

[Cheswick2.0]

44. I think it is a very useful thing to do Walt

Thank you for helping people to see the truth about the DLC.

[Walt Starr]

54. No, ... thank YOU!

So many people are blind to the true agenda of the PNAC/DLC.

[imenja]

65. What issues and principles are central to you?

You've given us a good idea of the sort of ideas you feel strongly against, but what values and principles do you support? What are the core ideas you'd like to see the Democratic party stand for?

What strategy do you think will help achieve a progressive, Democratic victory? How can we create a party that serves the interests of the American people above those of corporations? How do we make sure progressive goals are translated into electoral wins?

[Q]

15. How is it 'hatred' to not want your party...

...taken over by neoconservative ideologues working from the inside?

[imenja]

74. it's not

but four times I've asked him to say something about the direction he would like the party to take and he has refused. It's easy to point to individuals you dislike. It's more difficult and ultimately more productive to suggest alternative directions the party could take. Over and over again I've asked posters on DU to suggest some ideas, but very few do. I don't understand what purpose it serves to continually trash the party without offering alternative solutions.

[Cheswick2.0]

we lose because no one wants to vote for the lesser republican party

maybe you think we should just nominate republicans for office too? Then we can always win.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WI_DEM]

37. Oh come on

There is always an excuse for every idiotic thing the DLC wing of the party does, isn't there?

[Cheswick2.0]

41. forget it

We don't need republicans making policy for us so that we can understand them.

[mazzarro]

7. Every DLC analysis of electoral results

has always been slanted toward making their case to move the democratic party toward the reThuglican so called middle while at the same time distancing the party from its traditional base. The DLC has determined that the traditional base of the party is no longer worth the party's allegiance and it is trying to forge a new base which, IMO , will be made of independents and the so-called moderate repugs. I will hope that somehow we can exorcise this group from the party or abandon the party en-mass for the Green party.

[Walt Starr]

8. "moving to the center"

is a nice way of saying moving to the right. Furthermore, every time the Democrats move to the right, the republicans just slide along to the right along with us, thus marginalizing our position and shifting the center further away from us.

The DLC is the path of LOSERS. It's clear, their purpose is to win elections FOR REPUBLICANS!

[Tinoire]

10. It gets uglier! Thanks Walt for digging this up! more PNAC for the DLC

Yuck. Aide to Alan Keyes. Close to Ralph Reed.

From an edition called "Rewarding Palestinian terrorism"


The Front Line in the War on Terror
It's Israel now, not Afghanistan.
by Marshall Wittmann
04/08/2002, Volume 007, Issue 29

THE FRONT LINES in the war against terror are no longer in the mountains of Afghanistan, but rather in the streets of Israel. Since America was attacked in September, both friends and adversaries of Israel have attempted to deny the link between America's war on terror and the dispute in the Middle East. After all, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were more focused on removing American influence from the Islamic world than promoting the Palestinian cause. But increasingly, there appears to be a real nexus--call it an axis--between al Qaeda and its sister terrorist networks, the key Israel-hating and terrorist-sponsoring regimes of the Middle East, and Arafat's Palestinian Authority and its instruments. The assault on Israeli civilians is now the cutting edge of the axis of evil.

(snip)

Of course, we should not be surprised by the alliance of the anti-Israel Islamists. Early on, bin Laden signaled that his enemies were the "Crusaders and the Jews." The captured arms shipment of the

Karine A confirmed the link between the Palestinian Authority and Iran. Yet the Bush administration has resisted calling attention to this Middle East anti-Israel terror axis, fearing to alienate the so-called moderate Arabs. To assuage Muslim opinion, the president even endorsed a Palestinian state. Hamas and Hezbollah were not initially placed on the list of terrorist organizations for financial crackdowns, and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades were only recently named. Other Arafat-controlled organizations are still in the clear.

The expressions of joy in the "Palestinian street" over the attacks on New York and the Pentagon were an early signal that the Palestinians were likely to aid bin Laden's terrorist war. If the foreign policy sophisticates in Washington did not understand the link between the Palestinian cause and al Qaeda, the Arab masses were not confused.

(snip)

More important, the Palestinian organizations, including Arafat's own groups, escalated their campaign of blood and terror against Israeli civilians. While the Bush administration has displayed moral clarity in the U.S. war against the Taliban, the American response to the Israeli defense has often tended in the direction of flaccid moral equivalence decrying the "cycle of violence." Absent in the American response to Palestinian terror has been the determined resolve that the United States has shown in Afghanistan. While America hurled missiles against the Taliban, the Bush administration urged Israelis to enter the peace process with their own terrorists.

(snip)

http://theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/070keieb.asp

===

Marshall Wittmann

Marshall Wittmann surprises many people. Right now, the 42-year-old is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. Previous to that he worked as the chief lobbyist on Capitol Hill for the Christian Coalition. Which is interesting, because Wittmann is Jewish.

When asked “what’s a nice Jewish boy like you doing in a place like this?” Wittmann explains that there is no discord between Judaism and conservative politics, or even between Judaism and Christian activism. “I certainly don’t think there is a conflict. The two faiths share a God, a Bible, a common heritage, and many of the same perspectives on life.” Wittmann has been drawn to work with Christian conservatives by agreement with their social and political positions, for instance on family issues. He is not alone, he says, pointing out that conservative Jews and evangelical Christians are uniting behind common causes more and more. “In New York City, for instance, there were very clear alliances between religious Christians and Jews over school board elections a couple of years ago. I see pockets of coalition developing around the country.”

Asked whether he fears having Christian values forced on him, he says this is a misunderstanding of what religious conservatives are up to. “Religious conservatives are often said to want to impose their values upon others. But in reality, I find, what most are trying to do is simply to prevent the values of others from being imposed upon them.” Their struggle is a defensive one to preserve their views in the face of aggressive efforts to drive all religious perspectives out of public life, he suggests. Wittmann cites the reaction in New York City against attempts to teach homosexual rights to kindergarten and other grade school children as an example of such a defensive backlash.

Wittmann is troubled by the stereotypes of religious people that regularly appear in the media. “Somehow it seems to be considered fair game to attack religious conservatives.” He notes that religious leftists have been involved in politics for many years, in causes “ranging from civil rights to the anti-war movement, and it never seemed to be an issue with the mainstream media. But when religious conservatives became active more recently, there was lots of criticism.” Wittmann thinks that the coverage of religious conservatives is improving, though not yet balanced. “In major part because of what politically happened in 1994, the media is being forced to take religious conservatives more seriously.”

(snip)

Nov/Dec 1995 issue
The American Enterprise Online – taemag.org
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.16454/article_detail.asp
====================





Coalition Legislative Affairs Director Marshall Wittmann (seated). Wittmann and Reed orchestrated the Coalition's distribution of some 33 million pieces of campaign literature, most of it through churches, and galvanized the grassroots. Coalition exit polls showed that religious conservatives accounted for one-third of all votes cast.

[regnaD kciN]

11. But, Walt...

...wasn't it you who, barely more than a month ago, was proclaiming that we had to support the "big tent" vision of the Democratic Party? Didn't you say that you regretted ever criticizing Joe Lieberman, and that we "needed him" and others like him (which, I would assume, would include the DLC) in the Party?

:shrug:

[Walt Starr]

17. Yep, I was W-R-O-N-G

These fuckers are colluding with the PNAC.

[Tinoire]

13. September 20, 2001 Letter of PNAC to President George W. Bush

Toward a Comprehensive Strategy

Project for the New American Century

1150 17th St NW Suite 510 Washington, DC 20037 September 20, 2001

The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We write to endorse your admirable commitment to "lead the world to victory" in the war against terrorism. We fully support your call for "a broad and sustained campaign" against the "terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them." We agree with Secretary of State Powell that the United States must find and punish the perpetrators of the horrific attack of September 11, and we must, as he said, "go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world" and "get it by its branch and root." We agree with the Secretary of State that U.S. policy must aim not only at finding the people responsible for this incident, but must also target those "other groups out there that mean us no good" and "that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies." In order to carry out this "first war of the 21st century" successfully, and in order, as you have said, to do future "generations a favor by coming together and whipping terrorism," we believe the following steps are necessary parts of a comprehensive strategy.

Osama bin Laden We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military action in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country.

Iraq We agree with Secretary of State Powell's recent statement that Saddam Hussein "is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth…." It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a "safe zone" in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.

Hezbollah Hezbollah is one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. It is suspected of having been involved in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Africa, and implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah clearly falls in the category cited by Secretary Powell of groups "that mean us no good" and "that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies." Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority Israel has been and remains America's staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist attacks against Israel. Until the Palestinian Authority moves against terror, the United States should provide it no further assistance.

U.S. Defense Budget A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war. There is, of course, much more that will have to be done. Diplomatic efforts will be required to enlist other nations' aid in this war on terrorism. Economic and financial tools at our disposal will have to be used. There are other actions of a military nature that may well be needed. However, in our judgement the steps outlined above constitute the minimum necessary if this war is to be fought effectively and brought to a successful conclusion. Our purpose in writing is to assure you of our support as you do what must be done to lead the nation to victory in this fight.

Sincerely,

William Kristol, Gary Bauer, Jeffrey Bell, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, Eliot Cohen, Seth Cropsey, Midge Decter, Thomas Donnelly, Aaron Friedberg, Hillel Fradkin, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Jeffrey Gedmin, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Charles Hill, Bruce P. Jackson, Eli S. Jacobs, Michael Joyce, Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Charles Krauthammer, John Lehman, Clifford May, Richard Perle, Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, Randy Scheunemann, Gary Schmitt, William Schneider, Jr., Richard H. Shultz, Henry Sokolski, Stephen J. Solarz, Vin Weber, Leon Wieseltier, Marshall Wittmann.


http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

[Walt Starr]

18. If the DLC gets their way

We will be in a TPINO situation (Two Parties In Name Only).

[AntiCoup2K4]

42. Have you seen the latest PNAC letter?

Signed by none other than Joe "DLC" Biden himself!

http://www.newamericancentury.org/russia-20040928.htm

[Tinoire]

56. No I hadn't! This one is war against Putin.

Thanks for bringing it up!

What an arrogant letter! Why don't the let Russia's neighbors worry about Russia's energy policy? Instead they attack Russia and blame Europe for not jumping on the US bandwagon.

I notice the sabre-rattling PNAC b*tch signed it also.


Deja vu


=====
An Open Letter to the Heads of State and Government
Of the European Union and NATO

September 28, 2004

As citizens of the Euro-Atlantic community of democracies, we wish to express our sympathy and solidarity with the people of the Russian Federation in their struggle against terrorism. The mass murderers who seized School No. 1 in Beslan committed a heinous act of terrorism for which there can be no rationale or excuse. While other mass murderers have killed children and unarmed civilians, the calculated targeting of so many innocent children at school is an unprecedented act of barbarism that violates the values and norms of our community and which all civilized nations must condemn.

At the same time, we are deeply concerned that these tragic events are being used to further undermine democracy in Russia. Russia's democratic institutions have always been weak and fragile. Since becoming President in January 2000, Vladimir Putin has made them even weaker. He has systematically undercut the freedom and independence of the press, destroyed the checks and balances in the Russian federal system, arbitrarily imprisoned both real and imagined political rivals, removed legitimate candidates from electoral ballots, harassed and arrested NGO leaders, and weakened Russia's political parties. In the wake of the horrific crime in Beslan, President Putin has announced plans to further centralize power and to push through measures that will take Russia a step closer to authoritarian regime.

We are also worried about the deteriorating conduct of Russia in its foreign relations. President Putin's foreign policy is increasingly marked by a threatening attitude towards Russia's neighbors and Europe's energy security, the return of rhetoric of militarism and empire, and by a refusal to comply with Russia's international treaty obligations. In all aspects of Russian political life, the instruments of state power appear to be being rebuilt and the dominance of the security services to grow. We believe that this conduct cannot be accepted as the foundation of a true partnership between Russia and the democracies of NATO and the European Union.

These moves are only the latest evidence that the present Russian leadership is breaking away from the core democratic values of the Euro-Atlantic community. All too often in the past, the West has remained silent and restrained its criticism in the belief that President Putin's steps in the wrong direction were temporary and the hope that Russia would soon return to a democratic and pro-Western path. Western leaders continue to embrace President Putin in the face of growing evidence that the country is moving in the wrong direction and that his strategy for fighting terrorism is producing less and less freedom. We firmly believe dictatorship will not and cannot be the answer to Russia's problems and the very real threats it faces.

The leaders of the West must recognize that our current strategy towards Russia is failing. Our policies have failed to contribute to the democratic Russia we wished for and the people of this great country deserve after all the suffering they have endured. It is time for us to rethink how and to what extent we engage with Putin's Russia and to put ourselves unambiguously on the side of democratic forces in Russia. At this critical time in history when the West is pushing for democratic change around the world, including in the broader Middle East, it is imperative that we do not look the other way in assessing Moscow's behaviour or create a double standard for democracy in the countries which lie to Europe's East. We must speak the truth about what is happening in Russia. We owe it to the victims of Beslan and the tens of thousands of Russian democrats who are still fighting to preserve democracy and human freedom in their country.




Urban Ahlin Madeleine K. Albright Giuliano Amato

Uzi Arad Timothy Garton Ash Anders Aslund

Ronald D. Asmus Rafael L. Bardaji Wladyslaw Bartoszewski

Arnold Beichman Jeff Bergner Joseph R. Biden

Carl Bildt Max Boot Ellen Bork

Pascal Bruckner Mark Brzezinski Reinhard Buetikofer

Janusz Bugajski Michael Butler Martin Butora

Daniele Capezzone Per Carlsen Gunilla Carlsson

Ivo Daalder Massimo D'Alema Pavol Demes

Larry Diamond Peter Dimitrov Thomas Donnelly

Nicholas Eberstadt Uffe Elleman-Jensen Helga Flores Trejo

Francis Fukuyama Jeffrey Gedmin Bronislaw Geremek

Carl Gershmann Marc Ginsberg Andre Glucksmann

Phil Gordon Karl-Theodor von und zu Guttenberg

Istvan Gyarmati Pierre Hassner Vaclav Havel

Richard C. Holbrooke Toomas Ilves Bruce Jackson

Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Craig Kennedy

Penn Kemble Glenys Kinnock Bernard Kouchner

Jerzy Kozminski Ivan Krastev William Kristol

Girts Valdis Kristovskis Ludger Kuehnhardt Mart Laar

Vytautas Landsbergis Stephen Larrabee

Mark Leonard Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger

Tod Lindberg Tom Malinowski

Will Marshall Margarita Mathiopoulos

Clifford May John McCain Michael McFaul

Matteo Mecacci Mark Medish Thomas O. Melia

Sarah E. Mendelson Michael Mertes Ilir Meta

Adam Michnik Richard Morningstar Joshua Muravchik

Klaus Naumann Dietmar Nietan James O'Brien

Janusz Onyszkiewicz Cem Ozdemir Can Paker

Mark Palmer Martin Peretz Friedbert Pflueger

Danielle Pletka Florentino Portero Samantha Ravich

Janusz Reiter Alex Rondos Jim Rosapepe

Jacques Rupnik Eberhard Sandschneider

Randy Scheunemann Christian Schmidt

Gary Schmitt Simon Serfaty Stephen Sestanovich

Radek Sikorski Stefano Silvestri Martin Simecka

Gary Smith Abraham Sofaer James Steinberg

Gary Titley Ivan Vejvoda Sasha Vondra

Celeste Wallander Ruth Wedgood Richard Weitz

Kenneth Weinstein Jennifer Windsor R. James Woolsey

[Tinoire]

14. April 3, 2002 PNAC letter to George W. Bush

April 3, 2002


The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We write to thank you for your courageous leadership in the war on terrorism and to offer our full support as you continue to protect the security and well-being of Americans and all freedom-loving peoples around the world.

In particular, we want to commend you for your strong stance in support of the Israeli government as it engages in the present campaign to fight terrorism. As a liberal democracy under repeated attack by murderers who target civilians, Israel now needs and deserves steadfast support. This support, moreover, is essential to Israel’s continued survival as a free and democratic nation, for only the United States has the power and influence to provide meaningful assistance to our besieged ally. And with the memory of the terrorist attack of September 11 still seared in our minds and hearts, we Americans ought to be especially eager to show our solidarity in word and deed with a fellow victim of terrorist violence.

No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an “Axis of Evil.” Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles -- American principles -- in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred. As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has pointed out, Iran, Iraq, and Syria are all engaged in “inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing” against Israel, just as they have aided campaigns of terrorism against the United States over the past two decades. You have declared war on international terrorism, Mr. President. Israel is fighting the same war.

This central truth has important implications for any Middle East peace process. For one spoke of the terrorist network consists of Yasser Arafat and the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Although your critics in the United States, Europe and the Arab world suggest that you and your administration bear some responsibility for the lack of political progress between Israel and the Palestinians, they are mistaken. As Secretary of State Powell recently stated, the present crisis stems not from “the absence of a political way forward” but from “terrorism…, terrorism in its rawest form.” That terrorism has been aided, abetted, harbored, and in many instances directed by Mr. Arafat and his top lieutenants. Mr. Arafat has demonstrated time and again that he cannot be part of the peaceful solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He demonstrated it in July 2000, when he rejected the most generous Israeli peace offer in history; he demonstrated it in September 2000, when he launched the new intifada against Israel; and he demonstrated it again these past two weeks when, despite the hand you offered him through Vice President Cheney, he gave sanction to some of the worst terrorist violence against Israeli citizens.

It is true that the United States has a leading role to play in the Middle East and, potentially, in resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But it is critical that negotiations not be the product of terrorism or conducted under the threat of terrorist attack. This would send a most dangerous signal to our adversaries that civilized states do not have the necessary courage to fight terrorism in all its forms.

Mr. President, it can no longer be the policy of the United States to urge, much less to pressure, Israel to continue negotiating with Arafat, any more than we would be willing to be pressured to negotiate with Osama Bin Laden or Mullah Omar. Nor should the United States provide financial support to a Palestinian Authority that acts as a cog in the machine of Middle East terrorism, any more than we would approve of others providing assistance to Al Qaeda.

Instead, the United States should lend its full support to Israel as it seeks to root out the terrorist network that daily threatens the lives of Israeli citizens. Like our own efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere, Israel’s task will not be easy. It will not be accomplished quickly or painlessly. But with fortitude, on our part as well on the part of the Israeli people, it can succeed in significantly reducing the risk of future terrorist attacks against Israel and against us. And, in so doing, we will give the Palestinian people a chance they have so far not had under Arafat’s rule -- an opportunity to construct a political culture and government that do not marry their national and religious aspirations with suicide bombers.

Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel. Iraq has harbored terrorists such as Abu Nidal in the past, and it maintains links to the Al Qaeda network. If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors. Moreover, we believe that the surest path to peace in the Middle East lies not through the appeasement of Saddam and other local tyrants, but through a renewed commitment on our part, as you suggested in your State of the Union address, to the birth of freedom and democratic government in the Islamic world.

Mr. President, in that address, you put forth a most compelling vision of a world at peace, free from the threat of terrorism, where freedom flourishes. The strength of that vision lies in its moral clarity and consistency. In the war on terrorism, we cannot condemn some terrorists while claiming that other terrorists are potential partners for peace. We cannot help some allies under siege, while urging others to compromise their fundamental security. As you eloquently stated: “Our enemies send other people’s children on missions of suicide and murder. They embrace tyranny and death as a cause and a creed. We stand for a different choice, made long ago, on the day of our founding. We affirm it again today.”

Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism.

Sincerely,

William Kristol

Ken Adelman Gary Bauer Jeffrey Bell William J. Bennett

Ellen Bork Linda Chavez Eliot Cohen Midge Decter

Thomas Donnelly Nicholas Eberstadt Hillel Fradkin Frank Gaffney

Jeffrey Gedmin Reuel Marc Gerecht Charles Hill Bruce P. Jackson

Donald Kagan Robert Kagan John Lehman Tod Lindberg

Rich Lowry Clifford May Joshua Muravchik Martin Peretz

Richard Perle Daniel Pipes Norman Podhoretz Stephen P. Rosen

Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt William Schneider, Jr. Marshall Wittmann

R. James Woolsey

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-040302.htm

[robbedvoter]

19. There is insanity in this statement - same as in the primaries.

The focus is so wrong, it almost makes me want to defend the DLC - and I loathe them too. There is one word that I got to tell ya: PRIORITIES.
There was nothing more important than getting rid of BFEE - before the election - nothing now (well, except maybe for repairing the broken democracy - so we can get rid of BFEE)

[Walt Starr]

20. There is no way to get rid of the BFEE now

Especially since these fuckers colluded with the BFEE.

[mattclearing]

21. Agreed. People hate purges, but these people mean us harm.

The sooner people realize that the DLC is not our friend, the better off we all will be.

They are aligning the goals of the Democratic Party with the goals of the Republican Party: Corporatism at the expense of people.

Once the transformation the DLC intends is complete, the Democratic Party will never win an election again, with its natural base completely demoralized and without a viable home.

Republicans will win, and Al From will be happy.

[Walt Starr]

22. They don't just mean us harm

they've enabled the Republicans to get everything they want!

We may have no choice but to abandon this compromised party and start anew because of these fuckers.

[mattclearing]

23. Sadly, that is a line of reasoning that is neither productive, nor allowed

on this board.

We need Dean, and a hell of a lot of people like him.

The Democratic Party must be salvaged, because no other party is going to be taken seriously at the national level.

The DLC will have to be beaten down at every opportunity.

[Walt Starr]

24. The PNAC/DLC will not give up

and may well control everything ab out the party next year.

That happens and I can no longer support the party as it will be no different from the republican Party.

And that is not against board rules. Election is OVER.

[mattclearing]

26. Skinner said last week that dissing the Democratic Party is a good

way to get tombstoned. Check the Ask the Mods forum.

[Walt Starr]

27. Then I suggest you hit alert

The PNAC/DLC consolidates its power and the Democratic Party is D-E-A-D.

[salin]

31. The DLC is NOT the democratic party

it is a small - but very influential "policy/strategy" group that has influence on many law makers due to the "small town" effect of interconnected political consultants that dominate DC and oft have ties to the DLC.

Ironically, if I recall correctly, the movement grew out of Gary Hart's "New Democrat" rhetoric in the mid eighties which simply refered to being slightly more fiscally conservative (budget wise) in the sense of making sure programs paid for themselves rather than added to deficit. Today's DLC is very different than the Hart era rhetoric

[mattclearing]

40. Yeah, but he said the Democratic Party should be shitcanned for another

venue. I think that is both wrong-headed and destined for failure.

It's our Party. The DLC doesn't own it yet, and we can still take it back. I'm not going to give it away to those Republican apologist nutcases.

And I'm certainly not going to leave to join some fringe party with no hope of majority status.

[Walt Starr]

47. If the PNAC/DLC gets its way there is no Democratic Party

I can't shitcan that which the PNAC/DLC is in the process of shitcanning.

[mattclearing]

49. All the more reason to fight them.

eom

[Walt Starr]

51. Can't fight a guerilla

if nobody knows the guerilla is out there.

Hence this thread.

[mattclearing]

52. I think DU is aware of what the DLC is.

And the necessity of getting rid of them is a constant theme of debate.

We both seem to be on the same side of this issue.

I just don't believe we can or should let them steal this party.

[Walt Starr]

53. I disagree

As evidence to support my position, I present the PNAC/DLC enablers/defenders on this very thread!

[mattclearing]

55. You can lead a horse to water...

Not everyone is going to buy this. I think most people at DU are aware of the argument we are making, and will continue to make. Whether or not they agree is a different story.

[Tinoire]

59. Don't talk about it = More people don't find out about it

A lot of people lurk here to find out what is going on. More and more journalists are coming to this site to get feeds for their stories. Every day more and more hard-headed defenders of the DLC are realizing why so many of us have been sounding the alarm and examining them more closely.

We have a grave obligation to shout this stuff out so that more become aware of the danger in our midst.

[Walt Starr]

25. I should have said the PNAC/DLC

That's what these fuckers are.

I apologize for my error and will not allow it to happen again. You cannot remove PNAC from DLC.

[Pepperbelly]

28. come on, Walt. You're better than this...

I think you misprepresent the gist of the article. It was not an article in praise of the CC or any other group. It was an analysis of how Gingrich stole Christmas.

From the last paragraph in the article;

"Now that I've returned to my Democratic roots -- I was a Democratic activist in high school and college before moving rightward -- I see that there was much in Newt Gingrich's approach to politics that is abhorrent. He was an early master of the politics of personal destruction. But his successfully engineered insurgency -- through building coalitions, promoting reform, and valuing ideas -- can provide Democrats with a model for how they can develop their own ideas and operate as an insurgent minority, and most importantly, how that minority can become a majority again."

[Walt Starr]

29. He's a member of PNAC

For me, there will be a litmus test for any Democrat I will vote for. If they are a member of the DLC after this past election, they will not get my vote, period.

If the DLC wins the chairmanship, I'm done with the Republicratic-Democans.

[Pepperbelly]

30. What are you talking about?

The guy used to be a gop. Of course he is going to belong to all nature of groups. You still pulled that out of context in an effort to create alarm and dischord when it wasn't justified by the material you brought to the forum.

Actually read the entire article rather than getting excited by out-of-context quotations. It is not fair to your fellow DUers to bring out-of-context bits and pieces to create alarm and further divide the party.

[salin]

32. While I get what you are saying (context does matter)

color me prickly after the DLC led hate fest against liberals in the party. I am growing very skeptical. Guy could be on the up and up... or could be just center right which is now "middle" after the Bushjr "revolution" (or is that revulsion, or regression... or something.) The dlc seems to keep getting more right/center rather than moderate center. I don't think it is as much due to a real belief in repub ideology as it is opportunism - sell out in order to get votes, but they don't recognize that their advice has not always been good advice. THink that they believe that they are responsible for Clinton rather than Clinton's extrodinary charisma and instincts being responsible for Clinton.

I don't think they are as powerful as many here do, but I do find it very troubling that they seem to want to remake the democratic party in to the BobDole/Rockerfeller Republican party of the eighties. Where would that leave working class folks? Folks in poverty? Folks fighting for civil rights? Even more disenfranchised. And for strategies that haven't even been very effective. :(

[Pepperbelly]

35. check out the thread I started on the politics of false cause. nt

[Walt Starr]

33. PNAC and Christian Coalition

No thank you. That's REpublican, not Democratic.

Sorry, I won't vote for a Republican even if they call themselves a Democrat.

[Pepperbelly]

36. nor would I ask you to do so ...but I do think that you owe ...

other DUers an honest representation of the article you brought in to discuss rather than raising unjustified alarms.

[Walt Starr]

48. I gave an honest representation

The PNAC/DLC is turning to the Christian Coalition and PNAC for advice. That's what it's all about!

[Pepperbelly]

61. it was an article by a dude or dudette who was quite open about prior ...

associations and you left out the exculpatory last paragraph. Or can people not sometimes see the light? I think that this person is trying to leave the dark side.

[Walt Starr]

62. You've left out something far more important

This fuck doesn't renounce the positions of the CC or of PNAC. All he says is he's moved back to the Democrats.

So, the only conclusion that can be made is he wants the Democratic Party to represent the positions he holds, which is CC and PNAC.

[Pepperbelly]

68. but who cares what he wants?

He wrote an article.

An article.

That doesn't mean that they've turned the keys over to him or anything.

[Walt Starr]

69. Vote DLC if you want to

Fine, I won't, regardless.

[Pepperbelly]

70. whatever ...

the point is that you were being alarmist about something that certainly didn't deserve the attention that either one of us has paid to it. You shouldda went to my 'politics of false cause' thread. :D

[Walt Starr]

72. I'm not being alarmist

I refuse to take a polyanna postion where the PNAC/DLC is concerned.

[Pepperbelly]

73. suggesting that those who might differ with you are pollyannish is ...

absurd on the face of it. A total non sequiter. If you knew me, I personally guarantee you that the word 'pollyannish' would never in a million years occur to you.

[Walt Starr]

75. Kinda like suggesting that those who disagree with you are "alarmist"?

:eyes:

[Pepperbelly]

76. not at all but ...

I suppose that you do not see it.

[quaoar]

34. I'm willing to give this guy a chance

It is possible to have a political epiphany of sorts and see that what you once thought was true has been changed over time or corrupted by small and evil-minded people.

David Brock comes to mind in this discussion. He was as RW as they come. He admitted to some pretty sleazy stuff. Now he runs Media Matters and does a fabulous job exposing the lies of the RW media.

A lot of people didn't want give him any kind of chance either.

Besides, I don't see the DLC having the kind of influence it once had. The DLC's power was always based on its ability to raise corporate funds. The need for that has dissipated greatly thanks to the internet. We matched the Republicans dollar for dollar this year -- something I never thought I would see. And we didn't need the DLC to do it.

If there is one great shining moment from this horrible year, it is that -- we won't be outspent by the Republicans again and we don't need to beg at the corporate table like curs for token contributions.

The DLC is either going to have to conform to this new reality or fade into obscurity. They might stop Dean from becoming DNC chair, but they won't stop Dean because Democracy for America might then just become more important to electing Democrats than the DNC.

The DLC can get on board the train or they can get run over by it.

[Stinky The Clown]

38. Sadly, a fair amount of our financing this year was from corporate sources

But that is not to take away from your point ..... just to moderate it.

[mattclearing]

45. Bingo. Couldn't have said it better myself.

eom

[AntiCoup2K4]

46. I'm NOT willing to give the guy a chance.

PNAC is a collective of traitors against this country. Period. Their goal is treason, their agenda is treason, their methods are treason.

They belong in prison or dead, not running this party.

[Walt Starr]

57. Why should I give him a chance when the PNAC/DLC

is pushing the agenda he had before he slipped over to the Democrats and became a big wig in the PNAC/DLC?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. The DLC(R) have always been our enemies.

"Moderate" Republicans looking for a home. The Dems were dumb enough to give them the head office in the "big tent".

[Gold Metal Flake]

43. Walt, everytime a person reveals the DLC as a tool of the RNC....

God kills a puppy and flips a Dem voter. Please Walt, if you can't think of the puppies, think of the voters!

[Walt Starr]

50. Oh well

:shrug:

Gotta put the country ahead of party or the voters.

;)

[gulfcoastliberal]

58. THE DLC MUST GO

They are corrupting our party to the point that it's practically unrecognizable. They are absolutely more insidious and harmful than the republicans. We must clean house, as loathsome as it sounds. It must be done or they will succeed in destroying us from within. The only thing the DLC will accomplish is driving away the heart and soul of the party.

[lateo]

63. I couldn't agree more Walt.

The sooner these assclowns are gone the better off the Democrats will be. I'm not holding my breath though because the DLC has some powerful claws within the party and I don't think they will leave.

[matcom]

64. A FUCKING MEN WALT!!

a.fucking.MEN!

[Yuugal]

66. DLC = more of the same nt

[merkins]

67. What an Eye-Opener .. thanks Walt & Tinoire

I think your title hits it on the head .. I thought these pricks were
just greedy corporist but now they are looking like a malignant cancer
deep in the body .. dear god what an ugly wake-up call .. Onward...

[jonnyblitz]

71. I second your post.

:thumbsup:

[Tinoire]

80. My (our) pleasure Merkins

Welcome to DU :toast:

You hit the nail on the head... A malignant cancer... How up to speed are you on the DLC, PNAC, PPI?

I'm curious because over the last year I've noticed that many people outside of the internet activism circle are very aware of what's going on. I like to keep a pulse on how much Progressives' efforts are paying off.

Peace


Reposting this just for you...

You have the neo-conservatives and their PNAC who have hijacked the Republican party.

then you have the neo-Liberals and their PPI who are so closely allied with the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) that they make joint announcements on their appointments. There's a real rotating door between those two. They have hijacked the Democratic Party.

PNAC and PPI are both pretty much the same. http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/ppi.php

If you need to read up, we've got a ton of research on this but a good place to start (for lurkers) is http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/cat_the_pnac_opposition.html

The Lay of the Land for you & background info here: http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue5/intro.cfm

[Borgnine]

77. I agree with you.

The Republicans are scum. They've been our enemies for decades. It's a given with them. The DLC is supposed to be on our side, but slowly and surely they're just morphing into what we're supposed to be fighting.

We can't defeat these vile reptiles if we don't expell them from our own party first.

[Individualist]

78. Excise the cancer

and save the party! I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[bling bling]

79. Yep

More and more it seems that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are merely "labels" of one corporation competing with another.

Coke vs. Pepsi.