Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Must read: "The Strategic Class" and their effect on Democratic War Hawks

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 10:15 AM
Original message
Must read: "The Strategic Class" and their effect on Democratic War Hawks
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050829&s=berman

by ARI BERMAN

In July 2002, at the first Senate hearing on Iraq, then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden pledged his allegiance to Bush's war. Ever since, the blunt-spoken Biden has seized every opportunity to dismiss antiwar critics within his own party, vocally denouncing Bush's handling of the war while doggedly supporting the war effort itself. Biden carried this message into the Kerry campaign as the candidate's closest foreign policy confidant, and a few days after announcing his own intention to run for the presidency in 2008, he gave a major speech at the Brookings Institution in which he criticized rising calls for withdrawal as a "gigantic mistake."

The Democrats' speculative front-runner for '08, Hillary Clinton, has offered similarly hawkish rhetoric. "If we were to artificially set a deadline of some sort, that would be like a green light to the terrorists, and we can't afford to do that," Clinton told CBS in February. Instead, she recently proposed enlarging the Army by 80,000 troops "to respond to threats wherever danger lies." Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee, appears more comfortable accommodating the President's Iraq policy than opposing it, and her early and sustained support for the war (and frequent photo-ops with the troops) supposedly reinforces her national security credentials.

The prominence of party leaders like Biden and Clinton, and of a slew of other potential prowar candidates who support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, presents the Democrats with an odd dilemma: At a time when the American people are turning against the Iraq War and favor a withdrawal of US troops, and British and American leaders are publicly discussing a partial pullback, the leading Democratic presidential candidates for '08 are unapologetic war hawks. Nearly 60 percent of Americans now oppose the war, according to recent polling. Sixty-three percent want US troops brought home within the next year. Yet a recent National Journal "insiders poll" found that a similar margin of Democratic members of Congress reject setting any timetable. The possibility that America's military presence in Iraq may be doing more harm than good is considered beyond the pale of "sophisticated" debate.

<>Biden and Clinton still have more influence than antiwar politicians like Ted Kennedy or Russ Feingold. No one has replaced Holbrooke or Albright. Pollack continues to thrive at Brookings and, despite never visiting the country, has a new book out about Iran. Shortly after the election, Beinart penned a 5,683-word essay calling on hawkish Democrats to repudiate "softs" like MoveOn.org and Michael Moore; the essay won Beinart--already a fellow at Brookings--a $650,000 book deal and high-profile visibility on the Washington ideas circuit. Subsequently a statement of leading policy apparatchiks on the PPI publication Blueprint challenged fellow Democrats to make fighting Islamic totalitarianism the central organizing principle of the party. Replace the words "Al Qaeda" with "Soviet Union" and the essay seemed straight out of 1947-48; the militarized post-9/11 climate of fear had reincarnated the cold war Democrat. A number of leading specialists signed a letter by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century asking Congress to boost the defense budget and increase the size of the military by 25,000 troops each year over the next several years. The "Third Way" group of conservative Senate Democrats recently introduced a similar proposal.

"There's an approach which says, 'Let's raise the stakes and call,'" says former Senator Gary Hart, a rare voice of principled opposition in the party today. "That if Republicans want a ten-division Army, let's be for a twelve-division Army. I think that's just nonsense, frankly. It's stupid policy. Trying to get on the other side of the Republicans is folly, both politically and substantively."

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LeftyElvis Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. These DLC sell-outs have always been hawkish
even Al Gore back in 2000:


US Vice-President Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein.

There can be no peace for the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalise his people and threaten his neighbours

Meeting a delegation from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), he also reiterated the administration's view that the Iraqi leader should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/809168.stm

...well at least he didn't lie to us about WMD, but still, being repuke-lite will win nothing. I think Dr. Dean is getting this message out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. By itself I have no problem with the removal of Saddam, but in context
of the larger issue of what to do with post-Saddam Iraq, forcible removal of Saddam by us created worse problems. That is why Bush I and the Clinton Admin did no use war to remove Saddam. Both were hoping for interal opposition to overthrow Saddam, but neither were willing to commit US troops to doing it an occupying Iraq in the aftermath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Copperred Donating Member (554 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
2. It has to do with the rich minorities who support them...eos.



It has NOTHING to do with looking better than the Republicans...

It has ALL to do with who has the money to back these people nationally and to those whom they owe their political fortunes.

EOS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeStateDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Sadly, I firmly believe you are correct, sellout dollar whores.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. the influence of corporatism runs very deep
in democratic party politics.
if there is to be a viable two party system -- let alone a multi-party system -- our corporate lords and masters will have to be dealt with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
4. These people are our enemies as surely as any neocon.
Party labels mean nothing when it comes to the struggle of the People against the ruling elites.

If we are ever to have a Democratic party whose fundamental principle is to champion the welfare of the common citzen over the welfare of corporations and the military-industrial-financial complex, then we must first understand who our enemies are and resolutely fight them -- whether they have 'D' after their name or not.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
6. I'm recommending this thread -- this is important information!
Edited on Tue Aug-16-05 10:50 AM by scarletwoman
Thank you for posting this article.

Btw, I enthusiastically agree with the sentiment expressed in your sig: A Democratic party that stands up and fights for the American people is a Democratic party worth fighting for!

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
8. Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-16-05 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
9. Typical. They zig when they should zag and zag when they should
zig
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2024, 05:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC