Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAs Robert Borosage, co-Director of the Campaign for America's Future, argues in The Nation's current issue, "the current rage in center-right Democratic circles is to resuscitate Harry Truman, substitute bin Laden for Stalin and jihadism for Communism, and summon America to a new global struggle."
Peter Beinart, for example, who was a supporter of the Iraq disaster (and has joined New Dems like Al From in urging Democrats to prove their resolve by purging the left from the Democratic party) is a leading proponent of the misleading and wrong analogy between Soviet totalitarianism and Islamic fundamentalism. For this stance, Beinart has been celebrated by leading members of the commentariat axis --Tom Friedman, Joe Klein and David Brooks among others. More are sure to follow.
But Beinart and his inside-the-beltway crusaders are out of touch with an America that seeks a principled foreign policy that will make them secure--not a messianic crusade that will deplete the nation's blood and treasure. His fighting faith pledge to "rally the American people" to sustain an "extended and robust" occupation in Iraq, his calls for America to intervene aggressively in the Middle East with a "sweeping program of economic, political and social reform" are more likely to create chaos and, perhaps, breed more terrorism than advance the cause of democracy. It is important to remember that this kind of "fighting faith" has more in common with the least successful periods of US foreign policy--the crusade that led us into Vietnam, our support for the Afghan Muhajedin and Bush's disastrous war in Iraq. It would be difficult to find a security consensus that is more wrongheaded for the challenges the United States now faces, or more at odds with the best traditions of the Democratic Party.
Of course, liberals need an effective national security strategy. But can we please stop with all the hurrahs about Harry Truman and his liberal national security achievements? What we need to do is reclaim another liberal, internationalist and eminently (as well as ethically) "realist" foreign policy tradition. It is the "Good Neighbor" policy crafted and championed by Franklin Roosevelt.
A "Good Neighbor" policy stresses the need for a community of nations to keep the peace and to promote economic dignity and prosperity for people in the developing as well as developed worlds. This liberal internationalist tradition rejects unilateral dominance and favors developing a "community of power" to keep the peace; It gives priority to a system of international law and governance over "preemptive" wars and unilateralism; It understands that to be effective, our foreign policy must work in tandem with reforms at home--to improve security, quality of life and basic rights; It considers military power to be a complement to, not a substitute for, economic power and diplomacy; and it gives a more central role to spreading economic prosperity to ensure peace and stability and environmental sustainability.
It is time to reclaim this proud tradition, update it, and use the Good Neighbor frame to advance a new set of policy goals and principles for a rational security policy.That also means redefining strength to mean smart and strong--not strong and wrong.
What's encouraging is that recent polls show there is a mandate for such an approach. Polls taken by the Program in International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) find large majorities support "deep cuts in defense spending" and support for using the money to increase spending on education, job training, energy independence and veterans' benefits. Powerful support also exists for a strong United Nations, reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles, strengthening international treaties and negotiating trade agreements that protect labor and environmental rights.
(In a short piece in Sunday's Washington Post, Beinart nods to the value of interdependence and international institutions. But it seems slightly opportunistic at this stage-- as if part of an effort to distinguish himself from the neocons and to rehabilitate himself with genuine liberal internationalists.)
At the core of this alternative to Beinart and other beltway insiders' messianic crusade is a belief that we spread our values and model chiefly by force of successful example. That does not mean retreat or isolationism. It means challenging this administration --and too many Democratic leaders-- who have bought into an over-militarized approach to terrorism, including the establishment of military bases in the Middle East and Central Asia. This policy has been disastrously counter-productive-- transforming a limited terrorist threat into a breeding ground for a new wave of more radical Islamic jihadism.
A better approach --and one consistent with a "Good Neighbor" foreign policy--would address the legitimate political grievances of the Arab and Islamic world, lower America's military profile in the region and put an international face on US policy. Our goals should be to change the conversation from religious and cultural conflict to jobs and human development, and to stress the importance of strengthening the legitimacy and internal capacity of local governments to deal with Islamic militants.
Sadly, it will be difficult to undertake any of these new and hopeful directions as long as we remain mired in Iraq. With virtually no political leadership, Americans have turned against the war. Yet its human and economic costs are spiraling out of control, with no end in sight. We near the day when 2500 men and women will have died in this war and more than 16,000 wounded or maimed. Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has estimated that the costs of war, occupation and related expenditures may reach two trillion dollars.
The best way to support the men and women who are serving in Iraq is to bring them home by the end of this year, as Rep. Jack Murtha, Senators Kerry, Kennedy and Feingold, among the few, have argued. (And as a recent Zogby poll showed, 72 percent of US troops serving in Iraq believe US forces should leave in the next year.)
It will not be easy, but our continued presence, as occupiers, inside the sectarian carnage of an unraveling civil war, and amidst revelations about Haditha, Ishaqi, Abu Ghraib, works against efforts to build stability or any modicum of sovereignty. As liberals we are clear that we do not intend to abandon Iraq or its beleaguered people. But our assistance should come not through military efforts but through international peacekeeping and humanitarian ones--to rebuild the war-torn economic and physical infrastructure.
These are perilous times--ones that raise large and fateful questions: what kind of country does the US want to be? Empire or republic? Global leader or global cop? Where is the America that, as Sherle Schwenninger observed in an important Nation article in July 2005, "is less one of warrior and preacher/proselytizer and more one of architect and builder., less one of imperial cop and more one of community leader. " American foreign policy should be be democratically accountable and guided by the nation's republican principles--and a belief that the US should not only oppose empires but eschew imperial policies.
I believe there are always alternatives in history and politics. But we must retrieve and fight for those traditions that counter the dangerous fantasies and follies of Beltway crusaders like Peter Beinart.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
I hope the leaders in the Democratic Party read Ms. Vanden Heuvel's article and take heed to the key points she makes in her article.
The question posed by Ms. Vanden Heuvel, "..what kind of country does the US want to be? Empire or republic? Global leader or global cop?" is most appropriate and the answer will serve as the fundamental tenet in determining our nation's foreign policy.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 06/12/2006 @ 08:55am
"Of course, liberals need an effective national security strategy."
Not likely....atleast nothing new. They (like Ms vanden Heuval) will push for "Kennedyesque/Peace Corps/UN Dept. of Welfare" response, easily "spun" as appeasement and international hand-outs.
Sure, sure...now the endless "Bush's foreign policy is WORST than that" posts...yeah, we know...EVERYTHING "Bush" is worst, but proposing things that are only SLIGHTLY less worse isn't better.
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2006 @ 09:12am
I hate to quote such garbage as Revenge of the Sith... but...
"So this is how democracy dies... to thunderous applause..."
Hey, even George Lucas gets it right sometimes.
Posted by jorcheim at 06/12/2006 @ 09:13am
Same argument was made in the 80's dealing with the Soviets. Internationalism, appeasement, and unilateral disarmament. If we had followed this advice back then, the Soviet Union would still be around. Internationalism in Iraq meant the failed economic blockade and the corrupt oil for food program.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/12/2006 @ 09:16am
The objectives in going into Iraq:
1. Replace bases lost in Saudi Arabia
2. Intimidate neighboring Arab states
3. Install client government which will provide favorable oil policy
4. Prevent China from obtaining Iraqi oil
The score (so far)
1. 17 or 19 permanent bases built
2. Libya, Syria and Lebanon are behaving "better"
3. A work in progress
4. China has been forced to scrounge for oil in countries with smaller supplies
When looked at from this point of view, instead of the smokescreen of WMD and "freedom", the objectives are being met. If, or when, the Dems get into power they won't change these goals either. When anyone says it's not about oil, you know it's about oil.
Posted by rdf at 06/12/2006 @ 09:26am
BTW, Ms vanden Heuval piece of advice...
"(And as a recent Zogby poll showed, 72 percent of US troops serving in Iraq believe US forces should leave in the next year.)"
Don't quote Zogby Polls....after his push-poll where he got "58% of Americans want Bush impeached", and NO other polling company could duplicate that "result"...Zogby pretty much as reliable as an online poll at Daily Kos for accurate views on the public or the troops.
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2006 @ 09:54am
OK Mask, what should America's foreign policy strategy look like?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2006 @ 10:06am
". For this stance, Beinart has been celebrated by leading members of the commentariat axis --Tom Friedman, Joe Klein and David Brooks among others. More are sure to follow. "
These are not commetariat, they are liberals by any sense of the word and are recognized as such by anyone who can read..except here..
and,
"But Beinart and his inside-the-beltway crusaders are out of touch with an America that seeks a principled foreign policy that will make them secure--not a messianic crusade that will deplete the nation's blood and treasure"...
I think this is evidence of the slit in the democratic party and will further demostrate the pattern and out right fissure as the election nears....resulting in a bigger GOP win than anyone here expects..
Posted by john maasch at 06/12/2006 @ 10:13am
"With virtually no political leadership, Americans have turned against the war. "
I believe many have turned against the war due to constant harping about the negative events as if they are the norm rather than the exception.(ie., Abu Grab, body counts like score boards, ect) by the dems and the MSM. NOT ONE POSITIVE NEWS STORY FROM IRAQ. Ever..who wouldn't wonder?
Posted by john maasch at 06/12/2006 @ 10:19am
"As liberals we are clear that we do not intend to abandon Iraq or its beleaguered people. "
Really? How can America tell...what would you do the afternoon the US left?...Build ..what? card tables and invite the insurgents to come sit down and all get along? Ask what the foriegn fighters would like now? Before or after they blew you and the card tables up? This is not real.
Posted by john maasch at 06/12/2006 @ 10:23am
Posted by HMAN23 06/12/2006 @ 10:06am | ignore this person
How about John Kerry in 2004, before "conversion", (i.e. trying to win back the base for 2008)?
and how about not relying on "PIPA" for "reinforcing push-polls" on the "United Nations" support? Seriously, after Oil-for-Food and even the LEFT's protest of UNGASS, do you think there's "mass support" for the UN?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2006 @ 10:25am
The is nothing "UNITED" in the UN. Too manty tin horns acting as if they are in charge and can have an effect on someone elses dollar.
Posted by john maasch at 06/12/2006 @ 10:28am
Obviously Richard Kim of "The Nation" isn't reading the Program in International Policy Attitudes polling!
BLOG | Posted 05/31/2006 @ 6:50pm
Former Bush AIDS Czar Slams US Policies----Richard Kim
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2006 @ 10:46am
"IMAGINE, all the people,.....living life in peace....oooowhoooo yeah....you may say I'm a dreamer.....but i am not the only one."
Apparently millionaire heiress, Katrina Van De Hueval,wants all the nations of the world to come together and be "good neighbors" with our foriegn policy.
Trouble is that it isnt us, that is the main problem in the world, despite how much liberals tend to think it, it is all the Irans, and SADDAMS and N.Korea in the world.
You see they tend not to follow international rules, and dont much care too.
Then what? How long will you "talk" before you act?
Remember the League of Nations and WHY it FAILED! They had no will to act or take any kind of tough measures, but they sure did talk alot
Posted by CPT at 06/12/2006 @ 11:14am
CPT
So tell us Capt'n.....Saddam had no WMDs, barely an army, a coupla leftover scuds, and precious more than a handful of minor artillery and a few planes. What, pray tell, would he have done? N Korea - sure, everyone knows they are crazy...so why all the focus on the mideast instead of a lunatic with nukes? I believe the answer was addressed upthread a mite - its about the oil.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/12/2006 @ 11:27am
LOC,
You must let pansies like CPT run through the streets screaming in their cowardly panics about the dangers of "strongmen" like Saddam.
I mean if everyone were to actually analyze the real level of MILITARY based threat that we actually face then the defense budget would be cut by 75-90% overnight.
And then where would chicken little's like CPT be? Out of a job!
Posted by freedomplease at 06/12/2006 @ 11:36am
Free,
Then what is all the talk from the left that the military is stretched to thin after Iraq? which is it...cut the military 90% or are we stretched to thin with NOT ENOUGH military? Or does it depend on who one is talking to?
Posted by john maasch at 06/12/2006 @ 11:49am
The 2005 SIPRI numbers came out today:
"The USA is responsible for 48 percent of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, France, Japan and China with 4 to 5 percent each," the Swedish government-funded institute added.
Posted by freedomplease at 06/12/2006 @ 11:51am
John,
Do we face a MILITARY threat from Iraq? Are the Iraqi insurgents boarding their nuclear submarines and about to land on the beaches of Florida?
No.
We have 130-140,000 soldiers in Iraq to "keep the peace". They are there to quell and subdue violence. A very high level of violence that the area is now prone to given that there is a power vacuum (which was created by our removal of Saddam, disolution of the Baath party and dissoultion of the previous Iraqi army).
Do you think we would have created that instability in a place that posed no threat to us (militarily) if we didn't rountinely spend $400-500Billion a year on the military?
Even if we didn't have any enemies we'd still create them in our minds just to justify the amount of money we throw at the situation.
Posted by freedomplease at 06/12/2006 @ 12:02pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/12/2006 @ 11:51am | ignore this person
You know, I always enjoy getting lectured by the Swedish....a people who stayed neutral during WORLD WAR TWO, allowed German troops to be transported through its country, and whose king presented medals to Hermann Goring.
And then, when things started to sour for the Nazis, suddenly cozied up to the Allies. And who later enjoyed NATO protection from the Soviets.
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2006 @ 12:10pm
Mask,
Unless you're going to give Hman a straight answer to his 10:06AM posting I'm going to put you on ignore by the end of the day.
Posted by freedomplease at 06/12/2006 @ 12:14pm
"Do we face a MILITARY threat from Iraq? Are the Iraqi insurgents boarding their nuclear submarines and about to land on the beaches of Florida? "
No, not anymore, but I do believe we are threatened from the AREA and if Iraq had the capacity to threaten us as you described, I think they would have..as demonstrated by the Iran and her rants..the main point, for me, we never invaded Iraq to stem an immenant attack, rather I believe the entire area is infested with mini bin Ladens with a religious fever and fevor to end the great satan...I for one was and am not interested in waiting for them to first attain more stregnth or weapons(from Iran or Saddam, for example) so they can use them first...to then enter the fray after some part of the world glows in the dark..Preventive medicine works for me...as far as stable Iraq, I think we are there to stabalize a part of the world that has never been stable...now, the question remains, will the area EVER be stable? I am not sure, but we may be of help. If left to the UN or to its own devices, Iraq would be another Iran , growing more belicose and threatening to all things western...
sorry so long ..
Posted by john maasch at 06/12/2006 @ 12:30pm
..also for me and many others, the war was never about Iraq alone, Iraq is and was just a part of a greater war being raged against us since before Carter...so for those of us , Iraq is not the focus..as it is for most here..their only focus..
Posted by john maasch at 06/12/2006 @ 12:32pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/12/2006 @ 12:14am | ignore this person
Well, despite that "dire threat", not because of it....I'll give you one or two--
First, we don't turn either our security or the management of a massive international welfare state to a body that both Left and Right now say is fundamentally flawed---the United Nations (re-read Richard Kim's articles on UNGASS for a "friendly" perspective).
Second, we DON'T create that international welfare state in the first place, because, like the one we had domestically, it will be flawed, encourage dependence, and on a huge scale, be frought with waste, abuse, and downright theft.
Third, we don't cozy up to nut jobs like Ahmadinejad in Iran and ignore his rabid frothings about the US and Israel as "Oh, he HAS to say that stuff to placate his hard-liners!" (The classic liberal excuse for every dictator they want to negotiate with since the 60s).
Fourth, we don't continually bring up "Haditha". Sure, we nail the guys who did it...who REALLY did it...not "those in power whose equivocating on Geneva 'pressured' the troops into doing it".
and finally, we don't sign off on every "environmental treaty" that SOUNDS good (but which leaves out China and India and disrupts OUR economy)....(only to discover a few years later that countries like CANADA, for Gosh's sakes, don't want any part of it either!)
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2006 @ 12:45pm
And then where would chicken little's like CPT be? Out of a job!
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/12/2006 @ 11:36am
With their panties still in a twist.
Posted by skeletonman at 06/12/2006 @ 12:58pm
I believe many have turned against the war due to constant harping about the negative events as if they are the norm rather than the exception.(ie., Abu Grab, body counts like score boards, ect) by the dems and the MSM. NOT ONE POSITIVE NEWS STORY FROM IRAQ. Ever..who wouldn't wonder?
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/12/2006 @ 10:19am
If we Americans are so gullible, then why should we believe that we were in our right minds when we supported the war? How will we ever make up our own minds if information is in the hands of someone else? Should we all just follow the Timothy Leary credo for dealing with the outside world since all information is biased? I mean, did we hear a single word of caution ("EVER") before we proceeded into Iraq?
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/12/2006 @ 2:06pm
Harry Truman "internationalism" is just another word used in place of "imperialism".It also means let AIPAC have it's way.
Posted by proudleftists at 06/12/2006 @ 2:48pm
KATRINA FOR PRESIDENT! OR SEC. of STATE,at least.Why is ALWAYS that "liberals and leftists" that must be purged from the Democrats? One GOP is enough!
Posted by proudleftists at 06/12/2006 @ 2:54pm
NOTE TO MARK: = Zogby used to be Rush's favorite pollster,so NOW he's NOT reliable.But more importantly,can the U.S.ontinue on this quest for Empire without destroying the American Republic? I know Bush is doing his best to do the latter.
Posted by proudleftists at 06/12/2006 @ 3:07pm
NOTE TO MARK:
Posted by PROUDLEFTISTS 06/12/2006 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person
Did you mean "MASK"?....if so, yeah, that's true...but that was before 9/11 and Zogby's change from objective pollster, to "man with an agenda" (note his PRE-polls closing prediction of a "comfortable" Kerry win).
Of course, if you have ANY OTHER polling company's results which confirm Mr Zogby's "58% pro-impeachment" poll....happy to retract my previous statement.
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2006 @ 3:19pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 06/12/2006 @ 3:17pm
Frei,
You know as well as anyone that we face a formidable two-pronged threat to our focus on the global war on terror, which consists of 1). those damn Mexicans and 2). liberals trying to prevent Ma and Pa Kettle from giving the farm over to their kin when they kick the bucket. Focus, Frei! Focus!
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/12/2006 @ 3:40pm
Did we all enjoy the little hate-fest presented to us yesterday courtesy of FIFA as Mexico took on Iran? Must have been at least 30 or 40 Mexicans on the field and more seemed to pour onto the field as the match progressed in spite of the all the bubbas lining the periphery. Then the Iranians kept getting distracted by spotting all the Jews and Americans in the stands.
But both of them were lucky; they didn't have to face the Czech Republic.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/12/2006 @ 3:43pm
Many readers may remember the haunting film, The Conversation, where Gene Hackman, who'd made a career of eavesdropping on others comes to believe HE is being spied on and goes nuts. This type of karmic blowback is seen in the way all the military (Veteran and now Nuclear Lab employees) data has been hacked into; as if to remind those who would like to mind other people's business: what goes around comes around. NONE are immune to the greater law of karma, the Universal system of accounting.
Posted by Siouxrose at 06/12/2006 @ 5:15pm
Ms. Vanden Heuvel fails to understand reality, which is not too suprising at this point. The Democrat Party is an organization of bumbling, inept, fools. The result? 260 Republicans in the House of Representatives and 62 Republicans in the United States Senate. With that super majority along with Cheney/Bush in the White House, every liberal in America should simply commit suicide and get it over with. Because when these supermajorities happen in the November 2006 Congressional elections, believe me, Tom Delay from Tel-A-Far and Sugarland will begin the extermination of all Democrats and Liberals.................Bread and Circuses Anyone.............?(LOL)
Posted by POSEIDON at 06/12/2006 @ 6:41pm
Bienart is on C-SPAN2 right now from a 6-9-06 program.WHAT AN ESTABLISHMENT S**K UP!He actually calls Bush eloquent!The first "left" magazine I subscibed to was "The New Republic",43 years ago.It hasn't been allowed in my home in 15-20 years,and if Bienart is ANY example, it is much worse today.
Posted by proudleftists at 06/12/2006 @ 7:26pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/12/2006 @ 7:00pm
Seems equally absurd that anyone with an IQ greater than 70 would not favor meaningful goals of jobs and human development over geopolitical strategies enforced via aggressive militarism and crony capitalism.
Yes, if people have access to decent jobs and education, along with real participatory democracy (not that bullshit model of 1980s El Salvador that Cheney was marketing last fall!) , they will be less apt to support the radical Islamic crazies frustrated with the likes of radical American fanatics carving up their resource-rich region for their own narrow, selfish interests.
Posted by Oustbush at 06/12/2006 @ 7:32pm
Smiles, LL, smiles! Welcome to...
Katrina's essay is a little long on the soft and short on the hard of the Good Neighbor Policy. This policy does not call for bi-weekly rap sessions (with chai tea, of course) with international terrorists. It recognizes that there are those who choose through no fault of ours to kill us and it recognizes the use of our military when it can actually take out those who would kill us otherwise. However, it uses the cool buzz words you'll find in any growing community across the country: vision, planning, efficiency. One of the key elements missing from our country right now is the sense that we have a plan--not just for Iraq, but in general. Congress and the president seem to wait for fires to start and then run in different directions to gather different materials to subdue the flames, though never fully extinguishing them. What we'd like to see is a strategery from our president that would lead to predictable and consistent actions. The article Katrina links is not the only such directive, but it's better than what we've got.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/12/2006 @ 7:33pm
OK it's Beinart.I'm sorry.But he is still a j**k,and Todd Gitlin,who is on the same program with Beinart,is REALLY not much better.ANYONE who DOESN'T REALIZE that the U.S. is an IMPERIALIST nation,cannot be taken seriously as a historian or critic of American society.You do NOT have to be a MARXIST to realize the REAL historical FACTS of this NATION
Posted by proudleftists at 06/12/2006 @ 7:35pm
I recently read a very good article detailing the nefarious machinations of Lord Cheney since he left office from his post in the first Bush administration. It describes the struggle between the US and Russia for control of the former Soviet states in the Caspian region, the oil rich republics that the US has been attempting to negotiate piple line deals with post Cold War. Bush is a clown, but Cheney is the interesting one whose history reveals a great deal of what motivates the people controlling this nation and its resources. It is Cheney's path that should be more closely scrutinized in order to learn more regarding the plans of these neoconservative thugs and gangsters.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060306I.shtml
Posted by Oustbush at 06/12/2006 @ 8:04pm
Zero,
I have to buzz out of here, but have you read the William Greider article (The Future Is Now) posted next to the blog site? I think he catches the political-economic moment very well, along with some very good suggestions for change.
Posted by Oustbush at 06/12/2006 @ 8:09pm
Such an excellent post!
Prior to the 2004 presidential election, I heard Pat Buchanan say that there was a civil war occurring within the republican party. With Bush prevailing, such talk quickly faded. I mention this because I feel as if the Democratic party is experiencing a similar battle within.
It's disconcerting to hear those who claim to be Democrats sound eerily like members of the Bush administration on foreign and domestic policy. These individuals continue in their attempt to pull the party towards the far-right while declaring themselves to be "moderates", leaving many with the impression that both political parties are the same. This leaves Democrats with the unenviable task of not only debating republicans on issues, but trying to convince an electorate that our approach is inherently different.
Democrats must reclaim the wise traditions of the Democratic party if we are to have any chance in the future. Adopting the "Good Neighbor" foreign policy and establishing a similar sound domestic policy based on logic is a great start.
Posted by Kane at 06/12/2006 @ 8:10pm
Greider's writings: great!
Katrina vanden Heuval's
great too, and female!
Was it Crosby, Stills, Nash...who
wrote: nobody's right if everybody's wrong?
Posted by lewwelge at 06/12/2006 @ 10:15pm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060306I.shtml
Posted by OUSTBUSH 06/12/2006 @ 8:04pm | ignore this person
People still quote "truthout.org"?!?!?!....Didn't they have Rove being indicted "secretly" a few weeks ago?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2006 @ 10:27pm
BTW, on foreign policy as well as domestic policy...
pure progressive Dems lose, "evil, centrist" Dems win!
Truman was one, and until the 60s and the rise of the neo-Left, he was praised for ending the war with the A-bomb, not castigated.
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2006 @ 10:28pm
People still quote "truthout.org"?!?!?!....Didn't they have Rove being indicted "secretly" a few weeks ago?!??!?
Posted by MASK 06/12/2006 @ 10:27pm | ignore this person
I don't know Mask, perhaps someone on that site did write about the Rove story, but this link is for an article describing the relations between Russia and the US, and their jostling for control in the oil-rich region of Central Asia-the Caspian Sea territories- formerly under the Soviet Union. Why don't you read the article rather than staying comfortably idle in your cozy hamlet of cynicism; lobbing rehashed talking points and condescending slogans/ stereotypes encapsulated in quotation marks to gives false legitimacy to your cutting rebuttals to all proposed ideas of change and reform??!!!??!
Posted by Oustbush at 06/12/2006 @ 11:53pm
I believe many have turned against the war due to constant harping about the negative events as if they are the norm rather than the exception.(ie., Abu Grab, body counts like score boards, ect) by the dems and the MSM. NOT ONE POSITIVE NEWS STORY FROM IRAQ. Ever..who wouldn't wonder?
You'd probably hear more positive news stories from Iraq if the reporters could leave the Green Zone without getting killed or kidnapped.
Posted by nyknicks12 at 06/13/2006 @ 12:00am
Truman was one, and until the 60s and the rise of the neo-Left, he was praised for ending the war with the A-bomb, not castigated.
Posted by MASK 06/12/2006 @ 10:28pm
Mask,
Either you're unaware or conveniently leaving out that small adventure in Korea...with that bumbling, arrogant, racist idiot MacArthur, and tens of thousands of dead Americans (34,000); along with South Korea losing 800,000; North Korea more than 500,000; and China 1.5- 2 million casualties. This war did not work well for Truman.
Posted by Oustbush at 06/13/2006 @ 12:02am
believe many have turned against the war due to constant harping about the negative events as if they are the norm rather than the exception.(ie., Abu Grab, body counts like score boards, ect) by the dems and the MSM. NOT ONE POSITIVE NEWS STORY FROM IRAQ. Ever..who wouldn't wonder?
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/12/2006 @ 10:19am | ignore this person
Sorry, forgot the attribution...
Posted by nyknicks12 at 06/13/2006 @ 12:02am
MASK -
I asked you what our foreign policy should look like, it what it should NOT look like. Don't you have any ideas or merely criticism for the other side? - ironically, the usual conservative attack on liberals.
So long as we are talking about the NOTS - how about NOT invading and occupying a country that posed no imminent threat to our security in callous disregard of international norms? Isn't that on your list? It should be. I'd say the neo-conservative foreign policy experiment is just about over.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/13/2006 @ 12:03am
Posted by LEWWELGE 06/12/2006 @ 10:15pm
Hello Lew! Greider is a valuable resource: who else could write 700 plus pages on the Federal Reserve (Secrets of the Temple) and make it interesting enough to actually enjoy?!
How's your Congressional race looking? You have an excellent candidate in your district.
Posted by Oustbush at 06/13/2006 @ 12:07am
Truman was one, and until the 60s and the rise of the neo-Left, he was praised for ending the war with the A-bomb, not castigated.
Posted by MASK 06/12/2006 @ 10:28pm
Would that be the new left who embraced Civil Rights for minorities, equality for women, an end to destruction of the environment and intolerance for murdering Asian peasants who were willing to fight for national independence?
Posted by Oustbush at 06/13/2006 @ 12:18am
The voters in 2006 must understand that their choice is between the Democrat cut-and-run capitulation, and Republican victory in Iraq. :)
Posted by Tymbrimi at 06/13/2006 @ 03:12am
"These are perilous times--ones that raise large and fateful questions: what kind of country does the US want to be? Empire or republic? Global leader or global cop?" Well, a little bit of each I suppose. There is nothing fundamentally abhorrent about our values, and as the wealthiest, strongest and most influential country on earth, we inevitably become a global leader and, at times, a global cop. We are also at times a global financier and a global rescue operation. Americans as a whole do not have imperial designs and if anything, the history of the 20th century has been about the US mobilizing resources, spending money and sacrificing lives to thwart the real imperial designs of truly expanionist nations. The tempation to be binary--global leader vs. global cop; empire vs. republic--is best avoided because that debate leads nowhere. It lacks nuance. There is room for all voices in the debate and all counties should be heard from. We will not become a nation divided along sectarian party lines. We will not "hate" a president or ridicule "liberals." We will eschew those who do. Both believe they are acting in the country's best interests and to a large degree they are. Since what holds us together is a common belief in democracy, we will act on the basis of consensus. We're on the dividing line now...the old era has passed. We are building a new model that will last for generations, so it's time to get serious. Ambitious power grabs and attempting to attribute unprincipled motives to our opponents are not the signs of an educated, thoughtful, grown up people. As Americans, we should be extremely grateful for what has been bequeathed to us and for the immensity of what we have. The shrill political and social arguments that often dominate this information age are just bread and circus for the gullible among us. They cannot form the basis for serious discussion and rational debate. Economic dignity for all and a Good Neighbor policy can co-exist with a sturdy defense policy and a realistic appraisal of militant, terrorist groups and governments who do attack us and our allies and who do take advantage of power vacuums to murder the innocent. Now elections are coming up. They are not a cause for antagonism, but for celebration. Time to roll up our sleeves, to find common purpose and to consider what kind of world we are making for our children.
Posted by MojoWorking at 06/13/2006 @ 04:52am
Posted by OUSTBUSH 06/13/2006 @ 12:02am | ignore this person
Actually the Korean Conflict DID work out for Truman, since it did NOT result in a Third World War with China and their then-ally the Soviet Union, but a partitioned Korea. And Truman fired MacArthur for trying to cause that success to fail.
Posted by OUSTBUSH 06/13/2006 @ 12:18am | ignore this person
No, that would be the Blame-America-First, neo-Marxist, hyper-egalitarian neo-Left, whose primary foreign policy experience is excusing Soviet expanisonism during the 60s and 70s....
and who were rejected both by the American people and 50% of the Democratic Party...to today.
Posted by Mask at 06/13/2006 @ 08:16am
Posted by MOJOWORKING 06/13/2006 @ 04:52am | ignore this person
That sounds great, MOJO. And is clearly the centrist approach...not the "neo-conservatism" of the Hard Right, nor the "international welfare state" of the Hard Left.
Posted by Mask at 06/13/2006 @ 08:18am
Frei, that was a muddleheaded post. you turned everything upside down. it is the right who raised the gay marriage issue, again and again to no avail. and the reason the media don't report the good news in Iraq, is that there isn't any
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 08:32am
liberty, you are answering the voices in your head. you have nothing to say about what Katrina really posted. and I wouldn't challenge other people's IQ, ducks always envy the swan.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 08:34am
Lewwie, it was Buffalo Springfield.
Korea was partitioned before the Korean war, which was a war that returned to the status quo.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 08:41am
whose primary foreign policy experience is excusing US expanisonism during the 80s and 90s....
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2006 @ 08:41am
"So long as we are talking about the NOTS - how about NOT invading and occupying a country that posed no imminent threat to our security in callous disregard of international norms?"
What about one that is a current threat to US and us? What would you recommend?
Hey, how about we invade Mexico? Speaking of callous disregard of international laws, norms and borders? 10% of them have already invaded here, they have lots of oil, invaded us, can grow lots of food, have an industious population willing to work for low wages and have great beaches..we can teach them English...what would happen if we put say, 10% of our population down there in a matter of 10 years...
Kidding of course, but isn't Mexico a threat to our security in its present condition?
Posted by john maasch at 06/13/2006 @ 10:32am
Hman,
I won 1 beer on Rove not going anywhere but back to his office ,and 1 on no Rove indictment and lost 1 on Delay indictement and 1 on Delay return to house..I also bet the GOPers would pick up seats in the House..
Did I lose on Libby?
Let me know...
Posted by john maasch at 06/13/2006 @ 10:35am
You seem to keep files on these blogs past..is that legal and is it spying, kinda..:)
Posted by john maasch at 06/13/2006 @ 10:35am
Conservatives brightest hope is our own traitor Democrats, they hope that Democrats led by traitor centrists can take power and take the blame for what the George Bush administration has done.
It wont work, Hillary Clinton voted for George Bushs disaster in Iraq and she is damaged, but you cant expect her to lead on disasters like the Project for a New American Century, Big Dick and the PNAC (page 51). You cant expect Americans not to notice the difference. Even under traitor Democrats, America can recover, so Conservative hopes that traitor Democrats can take the blame will not work. Their hopes for traitor Democrats to work out a compromise that blocks investigations also wont work, because it gets out anyway.
Posted by conshame at 06/13/2006 @ 11:20am
Maasch - I won on Libby. As for Rove, I do not think we bet specifically on him, only that I said there would be additional indictments. Fitzgerald's investigation, and our bet on that, is still open - you have not won anything yet. Not sure what you mean about Rove going back to his office - but Rove ain't outta the woods yet (notwithstanding issues surrounding Jason Leapold's story).
By my count you have not won any bets with me. :)
We'll see come November (and with Rove or anyone else).
Posted by Hman23 at 06/13/2006 @ 12:37pm
hmmm ... maybe Rove is out of the woods. Just saw Corn's blog.
Like I said, not sure Rove was the bet, but just to show you what a great guy I am, I'll give you that one Maasch.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/13/2006 @ 12:41pm
Maasch - we also have a bet on Hillary.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/13/2006 @ 1:13pm
Way to grapple with Mask Oustbush, but I must respectfully disagree on at least one of your points re MacArthur, having greatly admired Arthur Schlesinger's best-selling biography "American Ceasar." Arrogant no doubt, perhaps racist, but he was a brilliant and masterful strategist and tactician whose leapfrog battling with sea and air power over fortified Japanese strongholds in the South Pacific saved tens of thousands of our troops from death and destruction. As you infer however, especially given his early task of removing the embarrassing "bonus marchers," he was a patrician; no "working class hero" like Spartacus.
Posted by lewwelge at 06/13/2006 @ 1:25pm
Thanks Johann. And Buffalo Springfield's preeminent songwriter was Stephen Stills, I believe, with David Crosby? Graham Nash, the Britisher, came from the Hollies. Joni Mitchell was a major provider of song for CSN&Y, by the way, having lived near/with them in NYC's Greenwich Village area in those amazing mid-60's.
Yeah Oustbush, David Bruderly's candidacy for Florida's 6th congressional district is going well with supporters mostly saying "hurray for our side." By the way, I've a nephew entering Va.Tech this fall. Go Hokies!
Posted by lewwelge at 06/13/2006 @ 1:37pm
Posted by LEWWELGE 06/13/2006 @ 1:25pm | ignore this person
I'm ambigious on MacArthur....he was brilliant and did his part both in WW-2 and the early part of Korea.
But he disobeyed orders from the civilian government and was rightfully fired. His actions would have precipitated a full-scale war with China, resulting in Soviet involvement (if not war with the US and UN), and likely use of the few nuclear weapons we had to stop the Chinese.
As to JOHANN's point about the "partitioning of Korea"....YES, it was partitioned after WW-2, but what Truman "won" was...that status quo you mentioned.
If the UN had "worked" the way modern liberals want it to...South Korea would have gone the way of South Vietnam and you'd have seen Korean "boat people" on the shores of Japan in 1951. Fortunately the Soviets failed to show for the Sec Council vote and most of the world wasn't enthralled by socialism and anti-Americanism as they have been since the 60s.
Posted by Mask at 06/13/2006 @ 2:52pm
Mask,
My reference to the Korean War not working out well for Truman was based on his decision to step down and not seek re-election for a second term--due to his unpopularity. I was working within the political realities you so often frame all issues, though I do not care for this type of limitation. The Korean conflict was much too complicated to address within the confines of domestic American politics--I probably should not have brought it up. I thought you were attributing political success at the time to Truman for his foreign policy decisions.
Your categorization of the "Neo-Left" will not be further addressed by me, as it is your own subjective personal opinion (you are perfectly entitled to it), but it sounds more like the posting of RIO or FUKLIBZ.
Posted by Oustbush at 06/13/2006 @ 3:58pm
I'm down, Zero, and have been for a long time. What have we got to lose? A third party effort, led by the Greens or by Labor, may not win elections in the short term, but will build enough base to break chunks off of the major parties in the longhaul- so long as it is willing to do a balancing act between the independent movement and the so-called republican and democratic parties. The real republic, the real democracy, will find itself through such an effort.
Posted by JRJunior at 06/15/2006 @ 12:25pm