Where should the Democrats be on foreign policy?

[BurtWorm]

Joe Biden is quoted in a story in this week's New Yorker bragging about a constituent (a waitress who served him one night) of his telling him, "You are so strong, and <Kerry> is so weak." He says this twice, after telling the author (Peter Boyer) what he told Kerry what he should have said after bin Laden's election-eve ad for Bush:

“I’m on the phone, I e-mail, I say, ‘John, please, say three things: “How dare bin Laden speak of our President this way.” No. 2, “I know how to deal with preventing another 9/11.” No. 3, “Kill him.”’ Now, that’s harsh. Kerry needed to be harsh. And it was—Jesus Christ.” Here Biden threw up his hands. “He didn’t make any of it. Let’s get it straight. None of it. None of those three points were made.”

In fact, the article points out, Kerry did make those points--not in Biden's giddy kind of English, but in his own lumbering Brahminish way.

The article also quotes Biden and Lieberman "not able" to say anything about Howard Dean's anti-war stance besides:

Biden could find little to say about Dean, other than this: “No goddam chairman’s ever made a difference in the history of the Democratic Party.” His colleague Joseph Lieberman, who is perhaps the most conservative member of the Democratic caucus, said, “Dean was wrong on the war and what he was talking about was bad for the country. We’ll see what he does as chairman. If he devotes his energies to building a party at the base, as he talked about doing, good for him. If he continues to be a prominent spokesman on defense policy, I would regret it.”

On the other side, you have what the article calls the Kennedy/Boxer/Dean wing of the party:

Kennedy and Boxer—and Dean—are to the left of the Democratic center on foreign policy, but their views are shared by many of the Party’s active constituents. According to a recent Pew poll, seventy-four per cent of Democrats believe that it was wrong to go to war; twelve per cent of Republicans opposed the invasion. (The country as a whole, including independent voters, is evenly split on the issue.) Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, the antiwar group that helped propel Dean’s campaign for President, told me not long ago, “I don’t see how Bush can create a state of fear in our country, and go off in a reckless rush to war in Iraq, and then take credit somehow for exporting democracy, which is a bizarre term, anyway, because democracy is about self-governance.” In an e-mail to MoveOn members after the election, Pariser wrote, “It’s our party. We bought it, we own it and we’re going to take it back.”


And of course there's the great fuzzy middle.

So where should Dems be on foreign policy questions? Should they plagiarize Republican foreign policy, as Biden would have them do? (Evil reference to plagiarism intended, for you Biden fans. ;) ) Should they, in other words, presume that Americans won't vote for Democrats who, as Biden says, they wouldn't trust their lives with and throw the rubes plenty of red meat (which might mean baiting them with tough talk and switching to restrained action if elected)? Or should they gamble that an alliance-building, peace-oriented strategy will, if sold confidently, win voters to the Democratic side? Or should they stay nice and fuzzy for the great fuzzy middle?

I'm aware that my prejudice is showing in the way I phrase the question, but I encourage you to consider what you think would be the best course of action for the party in general or as a whole, whether you agree with the substance of the presentation or not.

[ZootSuitGringo]

1. What's really wrong with that article

is that it leaves out the Dem voice that makes the most sense on national security and foreign relations matters--General Wes Clark. Therefore, the article leaves out a large dimension that should be part of the discussion. Wonder why?

The Note reports:
Spotted on Capitol Hill yesterday: Wes Clark, speaking, according to a source who was there, to a standing-room-only gathering of Democratic Senate staffers with a national security bent.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1662806&mesg_id=1662806&page=
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156...
http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/03/signs_of_li...

[BurtWorm]

2. Would you mind synopsizing his position?

[ZootSuitGringo]

7. Well let me first say that we are specifically talking about Iraq, no?

So the heading of your post and your poll is somewhat misleading, as the comments within the article you posted deal directly with the Iraq war and how it should be approached politically (not really Foreign policy in general and what to do about it). So the real question, based on the article appears to be "how do Democrat frame the Iraq War issue to help them win votes".

In reference to Clark, he states that Democrats have to start approaching this Iraq war as though it may be winnable, and we have to start discussing how to keep the peace there while determining when to withdraw our troups.
---------------------
Here's another posters analysis of Clark's approach in reference to what Bush really stands for in reference to this war and winning it:

the major problems with Bush and his war is that he refuses to define what "winning the war" means.

One reason is because he doesn't want to be held accountable to whether or not we've won anything. Much better, from the Bush pov, to have a shifting standard, by which he can point to whatever happens, or rather whatever he can get the media to show is happening whether it is or not, and say, "See? We're winning!"

Another reason is because what Bush considers "winning" has nothing whatsoever to do with American interests. It was always about winning the '04 election by looking tough and "resolute" and by distracting voters from the fact that Osama and Al Qaeda are alive and well. And if he can line a few Big Oil pockets in the process, so much the better.
------------
and another's poster's humorous slant in explaining what Clark meant by "winning" Iraq:

there was this guy by the name of John Kerry who was the hope of the Democratic party in retaking the white house during the most important election in our lifetimes.

Well one day, during the General election campaign, John Kerry said this: "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place". Mind you, a war that Kerry had actually voted to give Bush the power to wage.

Soooooo

Karl Rove, aka, ventriloquist to Dummy BushJr said this in response:
"How can we elect someone to lead us in a war that he doesn't believe can be won, and that we are all wrong?" You see, Rove knew something that Kerry's team obviously didn't understand. Voters don't like leaders who would proclaim us "losers" in mid-stream. So Rove labeled Kerry a pessimist Defeatist.

and then the people voted, and somehow the Dummy won(partially because many voters perceived that Kerry and Democrats in general had losers' mentality).

Many believe that at this point, that the Iraq War, if handled properly, could be interpreted as a victory i.e. although 200 billion, 1500+ dead soldiers, 100,000+ Dead Iraqis later. This means that as Democrats, in order to not sound like defeatists (as people/voters don't really like those kinds of leaders anyway), Democrats must approach this current war to see the good in all of the bad, and at least have a plan in restoring the peace, and withdrawing troups as soon as the US can (under the circumstances).

It's called framing the issue in a positive manner. Not bad, bad, bad, but rather,"here's our Democratic plan for the war, and what we should do" type of attitude.

Clark was talking to Democrats about just that; reframing the War issue in a manner that doesn't leave voters to intepret that Democrats don't want to see this war won. You see, Democrats should want this war won, even though it was waged under false pretenses, handled terribly, cost more lives and money then was ever imagined. Democrats are accused too often of wanting things to turn out badly so that Bush can look bad. A majority of Americans don't want to worse to happen just to prove that point.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1662806

[BurtWorm]

26. No. That's not what the question is about. That is a 2004 election issue.

I'm talking about the future of American foreign policy, which of course includes the Iraq war, but also dealing with nuclear proliferation, genocide as it arises, terrorism in its proper perspective, etc.

[CarolNYC]

34. Wes' position

Here's some of Gen Clark's position on foreign policy from the latest entry at his Wesblog at www.securingamerica.com:

"Poverty, ignorance and desperation are feeding the wellspring of hatred against America and the values for which we stand. Many people perceive Americans as rich, as arrogant and as uncaring. Unfortunately, this Administration has done more to feed in to that stereotype than to dispel it. As a nation, we must show the world the formula that will save them from their oppression and save the world from endless wars. It's an American formula. It's the formula of freedom, opportunity and equality. We need a new vision for ourselves and our place in the world for the 21st century.

Part of our new vision for America is new strategy for national defense. So far, this administration's strategy hasn't been productive.

Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose, Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and the middle east remains unstable. These challenges demand a new vision for America.

My experience tells me there are three parts to resolving international tension and conflicts. First, we need to maximize diplomatic measures so that the world community speaks with one voice to represent the values of liberty, democracy and capitalism. Second, we need to commit to understanding the regional and local political situations, so we can walk a mile in the shoes of our adversaries and better understand the pressures they face. This understanding helps us arrive at the best solutions. Lastly, and only lastly, comes military force. The United States military is the best in the world and will accomplish whatever goals we set out for them -- but they are not equipped to do it all and do it alone. Nor should we be putting them in that position. They deserve better -- we all do."

http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/107

He's definitely not against using the military...if, and only if, all other means fail....whether to protect citizens here at home, or citizens of other countries against genocide and the like. But he thinks military force is only one part of any solution, if it's a part of it at all.

[CarolNYC]

44. More from Gen Clark

This from the last chapter, I think, of his book "Winning Modern Wars":

"We need to put significant resources and a focus of responsibility behind our offers of assistance. The United States needs a cabinet-level or subcabinet-level agency that is charged with developing plans, programs, and personnel structures to assist in the areas of political and economic development abroad. Call it the Department of International Development. Focusing our humanitarian and developmental efforts through a single, responsible department will help us bring the same kind of sustained attention to alleviating deprivation, misery, ethnic conflict, and poverty that we have brought to the problem of warfare. Serious research and development efforts are required to produce technologies, strategies, organizations, and trained personnel who can go into failed states, work with our allies and friends, and promote the political and economic reforms that will meet popular needs and reduce the sources of terrorism and conflict."

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. kick

[Clark2008]

47. Amen, Brother Gringo

The New Yorker failed to see the most experienced and measured voice in Democratic foreign policy today.
And, perhaps that is part of the problem. The corporate media simply doesn't know how to look outside the beltway box for their articles - whether they are left or right-leaning publications.

[LSdemocrat]

4. First: analyze each issue. Second: take a stand and stick to it

No one ideology is right all the time. Sometimes military intervention is a good idea, sometimes it isn't. The important thing is to actually stand up for your position and stick to it.

[moddemny]

9. Have to be careful

When advocating any form of military intervention even to prevent a genocide. You might be labeled "Bush-lite", a sell out, or a freeper.

[BurtWorm]

22. You're kind of grossly exaggerating there, aren't you?

It's not helpful to the discussion.

[BurtWorm]

5. Interesting horse race we have going here.

I wish those of you voting for the first option--especially if you disagree with it personally--would explain why you think it's where the Dems should be.

[BurtWorm]

6. Is DU always this slow on a Tuesday?

It's so slow I don't even realize it was Wednesday. :wtf:

[leyton]

8. Well, red meat is the only way to *win*.

I also happen to think that American force can be used for good in the world, as President Clinton showed in Bosnia, and as President Bush showed in Afghanistan before his crusade in Iraq (flame away). I think we should be more responsible than Bush is; that's a no-brainer. This war we're in now could have at least been carried out in a much smarter, less stupidheaded fashion.

And in general, "red meat", as you term it, is the only way to win the election. When was the last time a pacifist won a Presidential Election? The closest you'll get is the isolationists, but that ended with WWII. I think there is a ground between warmongering and pacifism that satisfies both the demands of politics and the demands of good policy.

[moddemny]

11. If only we could convince

the extreme left, defending yourself and others agaisnt dictators is not automatically a bad thing.

[Telly Savalas]

24. What dictator has posed a threat to the United States in the last decade?

You are aware that real people and not strawmen post here aren't you?

[moddemny]

27. Do we only go back a decade?

There are many dictators who would like to directly threaten the U.S. if given the means.

If you want a direct threat today, we can start with Kim-Jong Il.

Dont forget "others against dictators" part of the statement.

Whose strawman are you by the way?

[IrateCitizen]

31. Speaking of strawmen, look in the mirror...

There is no way that Kim Jong Il is seriously interested in threatening the United States, except out of a spirit of self-preservation. You need to brush up on a bit of history and current events, friend.

Relations between North and South Korea were thawing in the late 1990's with the advent of the "sunshine policy" between the two countries. One of Bush's first actions in office was to pretty much tell the S. Koreans they needed to stop such foolishness and adopt a more hardline stance. Everything with North Korea deteriorated from there, and was only exacerbated by our invasion of Iraq. The message sent to other countries by that action was, if you don't have nuclear capability, we're going to take you out. Therefore, if you don't want to be taken out, you'd better get nuclear capabilities!

Kim Jong Il is certainly a despot. But he isn't certifiably insane. He wants to hold on to power, plain and simple. He fully realizes (as Saddam did as well) that attacking the United States would be a death wish, and would accomplish nothing toward their ends of maintaining power.

The truth is that there is not a single nation-state on the earth that poses a threat to the United States -- except the United States itself. Our glorification of militarism, military adventurism, and unilateralist tendencies have served only to alienate us from the rest of the world and further weaken our position. The days of superpowers and hyperpowers is over. The United States is only, in the words of historian Emmanuel Todd, trying to maintain a hegemony that no longer exists. We are discovering that we cannot get along without the rest of the world at the very moment that the rest of the world is discovering that it can get along without us.

You can support strong military policies all you want, but the truth of the matter is that the world can no longer be controlled through military force. It's economic power and expression of values that wields true leadership in the world today, and in both of these categories the European Union is beginning to eclipse the United States. The problem is that it will be ALL of us who will pay the eventual price for the foolish course we've maintained long after the end of the Cold War.

Don't believe me? Then I suggest you read the following:
Wealth and Democracy by Kevin Phillips
The Sorrows of Empire by Chalmers Johnson
After the Empire by Emmanuel Todd

[moddemny]

35. "But he isn't certifiably insane."

He only imprisons hundreds of thousands of North Koreans, entire families, for not worshipping him in 8-9 large death camps under some of the most horrific conditions seen since the holocaust. (The estimates are 700,000 to 800,000 people)

North Koreans are in an almost 100% information blackout.

They can only buy televisions with 2-3 channels that tune in government sponsored programs, pyongyang is ringed with radio jammers so North Koreans who do have regular radios may not be able to tune in to the outside world.

Much of the foreign aid that comes in is shifted to military resources while large parts of the population scrounge for food and eat grass.

Very few outsiders are allowed in...... I wonder what they are trying to hide, maybe we should reserve judgement until we've had a good tour of the country?

Look at a satellite picture of North Korea at night and see how many lights they have on in their cities compared to South.

Did you brush up on some of the well known facts about North Korea?


Was I advocating global hegemony? Did I say control the world through military force?

Do you think Kim would stay North of the DMZ if South Korea and the US didn't have a robust defense south of the DMZ?

When a city like Sarajevo in Bosnia was surrounded by a ring of artillery and civilians were indiscriminately sniped and shot for three years was it a military adventure when Clinton intervened and bombed the out of control Serbs? Maybe he (Clinton) should have just let the slaughter go on?

Verbal expressions of values (or cease fire negotiations) didn't have much of an effect on Milosevic did they? After he first went on a rampage through Slovenia, then Croatia, then Bosnia and finally Kosovo.

Economic power? All despots respond really well to sanctions.


The thread is on where Democrats should be on foreign policy, so what did Bush when he came to office is his mistake. The problem is when a Democrat wants to formulate a policy on defense and national security instead of constantly letting Republicans distort facts and steal the issue he gets labeled a neocon, bush clone, bush lite, an advocate of empire, etc. Learn how to differentiate.


Before I am labeled as a warmonger one more time.

The truth is on a personal level when I go to Church I pray for world peace (and no war) all the time. When you come on to DU though, being religious can get you labeled a conservative faster than advocating any intervention on behalf of the defenseless.

[IrateCitizen]

36. None of the things you mentioned classify one as insane...

A megalomaniacal despot? Certainly. Insane? No.

Despots don't respond well to sanctions. The people under their control, however, DO respond well to efforts by neighboring countries to establish trade and provide humanitarian aid, usually in ways that do NOT bode well for the despots. Nothing strengthens leaders like Kim and the Iranian clergy more than shutting them out.

As for Bosnia and Clinton, I'm still incredibly mixed about that. Do I think something should have been done? Yes. And it was a NATO mission, not solely a US one. However, I don't think that a bombing campaign was the best way to go about it, and resulted in a lot of innocent civilians being killed.

As for peace, some of us do a lot more than simply pray for it. Some of us work for it every day of our lives. After all, it is by their FRUITS that ye shall know them, not by their PRAYERS.

Before you start speaking so derisively of the points I brought up, why not check out the three books I recommended to you. They might just open your eyes a little bit....

[moddemny]

40. I had no intention of being derisive, that started with the.....

strawman comment.


Lets not invade or bomb or initiate any type of military action against North Korea. We could simply start a long term information broadcasting campaign. Ring the borders with radio and TV transmitters, smuggle in radios, etc. Let's show them what life outside of North Korea and overcome some of the North Korean brainwashing. Is there anything wrong with informing people?

Then we'll see how fast Kim calls our efforts an act of war, threatens to invade the south, nuke Japan and Hawaii or anything else in missile range.

What's a madman with an army the size of North Korea and some nukes going to do when his people are informed and decide to rise up agaisnt him?

Let's say there is a rebellion in the North and the good guys can win with some air support? Do we help them? Or we do let Kim just go ahead and commit the massacre?

There are creative ways to take down dictators you know.

Not everything is an ill planned rush across the desert hoping for the best results (Iraq).


As for Bosnia, I followed that situation very closely, day in and day out. Not just in the news. I know many Croatians, Slovenes, Bosnia Muslims and even Serbs personally. Some who were refugees and some who had family members slaughtered.

If Americans can be blamed for everything that goes on in the world, can most Serbs be blamed for voting for Milosevic twice?, wanting to stay communist when all their neighbors in eastern europe where breaking away? or celebrating the shelling of Sarajevo, or knowing ethnic cleansing was going on and turning a blind eye. I dont like to lay collective guilt, because I have serbian friends. Most liberals expect America to get what it deserves for its policies, is there a problem with applying the same standard to the Serbs?


I gave peace a chance with more than a prayer myself. I had the chance to go to Balkans (I wont say with which military or who, it's a long story), instead I had liberal college professors, friends, family trying to convince me war is always wrong. I was young and listened because I thought they knew something I didn't. I should have went and put a bullet in the head in some of the m*therfu**kers (not the conscript draftees, but the real brutal paramilitaries who got off on killing) who were emptying out villages, killing the old, raping women, indiscrimately killing children because they didn't want to fight the next generation, etc. Now it's my regret I didn't. I shouldn't have listened to all the hippie sh*t.

[Telly Savalas]

43. Who on the "extreme left" thinks we should surrender to foreign powers?

That's the strawman I'm talking about.

I know there are lots of folks out there who would like to threaten the United States, but the reality is that since the U.S.is so large, wealthy, and powerful, it just aint gonna come close to happening in 99% of the cases.

How does Kim-Jong Il pose a direct threat to the U.S.? Is he gonna wake up some morning and think "aw, fuck it, let's nuke Oregon"? If so, what means of defending ourselves from him do we have that the "extreme left" are actively opposing? Surely not that white elephant Star Wars defence program. Certainly if we back the guy into a corner he could potentially lash out, but with smart diplomacy he's easily containable.

The Right's approach to security issues is analagous to using a shotgun to deal with a mosquito problem. They may be the nastiest malaria-carrying mosquitos on the planet, but that doesn't keep the shotgun from being a clumsy overreaction. Nowadays the threats to our security are no longer large nation-states, but rather small terrorist cells dispersed throughout the world. Americans are much more likely to be attacked by some redneck White Power terrorist group than by North Korea. Hence we need to come up with new strategies to deal with the changing situation. At least, that's what us crazies on the extreme Left believe.

And yeah, I did forget the "and others" part of the statement. The problem with this though is that most of the time what is being sold as fighting dictatorships who threaten others is simply the State Department meddling in other countries to advance the interests of big business. There's a huge difference between defending our country (something the Left supports) and imperialism (something the Left opposes). Typically when the U.S. government works to oust a dictator, the replacement they have in mind is equally bad.

While there is justified cynicism by the "extreme left" towards military action by the U.S., they are typically the loudest in calling for action in humanitarian crises. For example, you can find quite a few voices on the Left arguing that something needs to be done about the genocide in Darfur. Contrast this to the more mainstream pundits who seem to think that steroid use in baseball is a more urgent matter than genocide.

[moddemny]

51. The extreme left

.....is the left that equates any type of military intervention (among other things, it's not just limited to the military) as being a Bush-Like policy.

You can find the posts and comments all over DU, where people say in John Kerry or Clinton you are getting the same thing as Bush with very little difference. Some examples.


1. Bush goes to war unilaterally......... Kerry or Clinton advocate building true coalitions - big difference in reality - little difference to the extreme left.

2. Bush ignores the advice of his best Generals, example, Shinseki - Kerry or Clinton are more likely to leave most of the planning to reasonable military men. In reality big difference, to the extreme left, very little. Any General, no matter who the General, is a bogeyman to the extreme left.

3. The extreme left blames everything going on in the world as being our fault anyway and if America just behaved itself there would be no problems.

4. This one is very sad and although I hate to say it, I can provide proof. Many in the extreme left enjoy seeing American soldiers getting defeated and believe it or not, killed. They are the part of the left that is not ready to give the American soldier any of the benefit of the doubt. The would rather side with the car bombers and the kidnappers (in Iraq) despite the facts. Bush's sins should not be the sins of all the soldiers in Iraq. I can continue to elaborate/rant in disgust, but this point is just really, really to sad to continue with. I really don't want to dig up the posts or provide the links and provide more ammo to the enemies of the good things that the sane, not extreme, (more on the sane healthy left below) left stand for. There would be too much guilt by association. The extreme left keeps bringing up the lessons of Vietnam while forgetting one the most important ones, don't sh*t/spit on the soldiers.


"The Right's approach to security issues is analagous to using a shotgun to deal with a mosquito problem. They may be the nastiest malaria-carrying mosquitos on the planet, but that doesn't keep the shotgun from being a clumsy overreaction. Nowadays the threats to our security are no longer large nation-states, but rather small terrorist cells dispersed throughout the world. Americans are much more likely to be attacked by some redneck White Power terrorist group than by North Korea. Hence we need to come up with new strategies to deal with the changing situation. At least, that's what us crazies on the extreme Left believe."

Same problem again, its so deeply ingrained in you, you dont even realize it. I bring up military issues and you bring up the Right's approach. I wasn't defending the Right. I was saying Democrats who try to form a national security policy shouldn't be called bush-lites, bush clones, etc.

The first half of your quote.

"The Right's approach to security issues is analagous to using a shotgun to deal with a mosquito problem. They may be the nastiest malaria-carrying mosquitos on the planet, but that doesn't keep the shotgun from being a clumsy overreaction."

I totally agree with that quote, when it comes to terrorism. I still think there are nation states that can cause problems.

I personally believe North Korea would use a weapon of mass destruction before a redneck...... Say what you want about rednecks...... In most wars however whether you like them or not, dumb red-staters make good infantrymen.


In order to clarify extreme left a little further since you seem sensitive to the term.

"While there is justified cynicism by the "extreme left" towards military action by the U.S., they are typically the loudest in calling for action in humanitarian crises."

Calling for action in humanitarian crises is just left or center, not extreme left. It's good healthy left. If only extreme left wasn't undermining good healthy left with dumb ideas about American Imperialism. Like I mentioned before. It would help if during an election cycle when you have moderates like Clark, Lieberman, Kerry, etc. pointing out to swing voters that Democrats do have balls and are not scared off by military matters that you didn't have a chorus from the extreme left pointing how they are no different than Bush. It makes some people wonder whether you are trying to lose on purpose or if you really follow current events.

Extreme left takes what is a humanitarian crisis and turns it into a US conspiracy for global domination or furthering of empire.

Want an example? see what these people have to say about NATO or U.S, involvement in Bosnia

http://www.iacenter.org/

Or Afghanistan being fought over an oil pipeline, is that what you meant by big business interests?

I could point to many posts here on DU, but I don't want to get banned. I am not sure if people will be able to resist calling me a freeper.


"For example, you can find quite a few voices on the Left arguing that something needs to be done about the genocide in Darfur. Contrast this to the more mainstream pundits who seem to think that steroid use in baseball is a more urgent matter than genocide."

Your right, that's just regular left though. When or if the intervention actually occurs, I'll wait to see what conspiracies pop up from the extreme left.

How does Kim-Jong Il pose a direct threat to the U.S.? Is he gonna wake up some morning and think "aw, fuck it, let's nuke Oregon"? If so, what means of defending ourselves from him do we have that the "extreme left" are actively opposing? Surely not that white elephant Star Wars defence program."

Is it really such a bad idea to invest money into studying missile defense and deploy a limited defense (so you don't touch off an arms race) against a rogue state? It is purely defensive isn't it?

[BurtWorm]

25. You mean dictators like Bush? I think the left would agree with you there.

:thumbsup:

[moddemny]

28. ......

For the purposes of this discussion I'll differentiate between internal and external threats, though in reality in some discussions they may influence/relect/create one another. Bush's wreckless form of foreign policy in the present may be creating more external threats.

On the spectrum of repression and dictatorship Bush is on there but still not a full blown dictator yet (although full dictatorship may still yet be his goal).

[BurtWorm]

32. So which dictators should we use force against?

Do you have a list?

[leesa]

60. How are we defending ourselves against dictators??

You live in a fantasyland.

[MisterP]

12. who says?

[leyton]

37. I'm not sure what part you're referring to.

But if you think anti-war sentiment will win elections, ask John Kerry, George McGovern, the Federalists who protested 1812, etc. If you don't think being hawkish on defense wins elections, ask George W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, etc.

[MisterP]

39. Kerry said that he'd still have voted for war knowing all he knows today

--I mean, the "resolution"--and I believe Humphrey started taking up in the polls after he came out against 'Nam. McGovern led in the first polls, until Watergate and Eagleton: remember "dirty tricks" was invented in the '72 election--and Dick promised "Peace with honor."

[leyton]

45. Yet Kerry still protested the prosecution of the war.

That is still a form of protesting, and clearly many in our country can't tell the difference between protesting the decision and the prosecution just as they can't tell the difference between supporting the troops and voting for a sitting President. It's a political reality.

As for Nixon's promise of Peace with honor - he was commander-in-chief at the time and the people who are usually pro-war are the ones who will defer to a sitting President or look to him for guidance. Thus he can end the war whenever he wants, and not be accused of being weak or unpatriotic.

[MisterP]

46. peace with honor was in the '68 election

[leesa]

59. The invasion of Afghanistan was COMPLETELY inappropriate

You do not carpet bomb a country for ten months to hopefully catch a handful of alleged criminals. Especially when we have no idea who did 9-11, we only know that the liars in the White House said so without any viable evidence whatsoever. Afghanistan had nothing to do with it.

[IndianaGreen]

10. "You are so strong, and (Kerry) is so weak."

Was the waitress referring to Biden's erection? Biden should be banned from DU for being a neocon puke!

[moddemny]

13. Here we go.........

I think this is exaclty what I was referring too.......


Now Biden is a neocon?

[IndianaGreen]

15. Biden is a neocon, of the PPI variety

Biden supports the war, PATRIOT, the invasion or Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Cuba, and Venezuela. The only difference between Biden and Holy Joe is that Holy Joe kissed Bush.

[moddemny]

16. Do I have to go out and dig up transcripts of what biden really says?

From one leap.... biden is now a necon....... to another......

Biden suports the invasion of Iran,Syria, Lebanon, Cuba, and Venezuela??????

Are these military invasions we are talking about????



ooohhh boy...... right now 2008 isnt looking to good for the dems with those ideas.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Considering what you said about Howard Dean and his use of Bush-lite

in another thread, I am not about to do your research for you.

[moddemny]

19. I didnt ask you to do any research...................

I was pondering whether I should dig up transcripts of what Biden really believes and says.

I could probably very easily disprove Biden doesnt believe in an Iran invasion, let alone the other countries you ran off on your list.


Dean on the other hand is on the record many times calling moderates "Bush-Lites"

Keep putting words in the mouths of moderates and see how far you get in 2008.

It already cost dems at least one election.

[BurtWorm]

21. 2008 will look just like 2004 if the Dems keep being talked into trying

to sound like Republicans.

[moddemny]

29. Al gore was one of the people who talked Clinton ...........

into intervening in Bosnia, is he a neocon too?

I suppose Naderites who voted against Gore believed both he and Bush were the same thing. Who cost who what election?

[fujiyama]

14. Dean was in favor

of a strong foreign policy and he made it clear he wasn't the pacifist some saw him out to be.

His fp was pretty much common sense - you don't attack nations that don't attack you or threaten you in any great way. The same pretty much goes with Boxer...and Kerry as well. They had a mainstream common sense foreign policy.

I think you're making this more simplistic than need be. I used to have some respect for Biden. He used to ask good questions and talk a good talk about the administration's incompetance. But I've learned over time that it's just that - talk. He sure loves to do it, especially if there's a camera in front of him or someone interviewing him.

Lieberman's policy is disasterously close to this administration.

[BurtWorm]

20. I used the term "anti-war" to distinguish it from "pacifist"

so this may actually be more nuanced than need be, actually. I'm well aware that Dean is not a pacifist. He's clearly anti-Iraq war and he seems also to be skeptical of the war on terrorism as it's being fought, however, and, thus, is in general agreement with the left on this.

I also used to have respect for Biden. Occasionally he sounds like a coherent Democrat, as when he mocked Bush for pushing missile defense right after 9/11 (when it wasn't kosher to criticize Bush for anything) when it was clear missile defense was utterly beside the point. He has also made some decent noise against torture and prisoner abuse. But mostly he's, as you say, a talker.

[leesa]

61. Yes. Pacifist is such a dirty word. People who strive for peace have far

more strength and courage than the knee-jerk violent response most Americans have. Shoot first, ask questions later.
It's so sad the macho cowboy disease of Americans has destroyed the concept of desiring peace first.

[Cascadian]

17. Frankly, I would rather see our country be neutral.

I would rather see all our military be used to protect our own borders. This does not mean isolationism. I would like to see this country be involved in global affairs but not as the World's cop. The U.S. could become a fair broker to settle disputes between other countries. We can continue to be a part of the UN and other international organizations too.


John

[Vladimir]

23. To the left of all of them

OCCUPIERS OUT OF IRAQ RIGHT ABOUT FUCKING NOW!

[tx_dem41]

30. The poll choices are so polarizing and lacking in nuance...

They skip over about 8 "real" options...so I guess I will vote in the middle.

[BurtWorm]

33. Everyone's a critic!

Why not just put in words where you think the Dems should be?

[Beacho]

38. I voted other, position on foreign policy should be fluid

There are times that 'realpolitik' cannot be ignored and every opportunity to be humanitarian should be taken, in other words fluid.


The world changes on a daily basis. Situation 'A' may not require the same solution as Situation 'B'.


And to make it even more confusing, you still have to retain some sense of consistency. That's why we need the best and brightest in office, ie not these assholes.

[UdoKier]

41. OTHER: The JFK way.

Use the right's aggressive rhetoric, but once in office, quietly make every effort to move toward peace while keeping up a strong posture.

It worked for Kennedy - that's why they had to kill him.

[moddemny]

42. Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!

"Use the right's aggressive rhetoric, but once in office, quietly make every effort to move toward peace while keeping up a strong posture."


That's the hint I was trying to drop but not say openly.

Because if you say it openly, the effort defeats itself.

Someone actually gets it.

Some albeit slow progress.

[moddemny]

48. Now that udokier has it figured out......

This is a quick post early in the morning and I havent fleshed it out completely but......


Now that okie has it figured out, two things


1. We can can no longer discuss this strategy in public, Real freepers may see what were posting. We do not want to give things away.

We need a private forum. There are some things about defense issues not frequently mentioned in the media that are alternative to what Republicans propose, to lay it out openly here gives them time to steal it (there will still want to be Democrats who will want give it away anyway but I am trying for a fresh start)Some of it is old and needs to reframed,some of it is out there but has not been picked up
by either party. Note: This is not armchair stategy, we have give the uninformed among you something more to talk about instead of running away/giving away/bumbling/sh*tting on soldiers/sounding stupid on the issue.


2. Udokier gets nominated to chief democratic political strategist. For lack of better term he has "Rovian" instincts. (personally I think Rove gets too much credit but I think most of you know what I mean).

He has the strategy, no more yada, yada, yada, bush-lite, neocon blah, blah, blah from the rest of you, now everyone has to fall in line. Get with the program. Maybe you will win over enough swing voters so even is if their is election fraud and vote stealing next time around, stolen votes wont make a difference. The margin of victory will be much greater


Udokier's quote,Brilliantly phrased

"Use the right's aggressive rhetoric, but once in office, quietly make every effort to move toward peace while keeping up a strong posture"

can form one of the cornerstones of the new strategy (I think this is what buttworm wanted when he/she posted and asked for a formulation) There is a little more but it' a good beginning. Beacho and some of the other posters (leyton) make other good points

For the true pacifists among you there are a few things you have to realize

1. Politics may not be the highest form of human thinking, it's sad but true. An election has to be won and it may have to be done in a low minded way from time to time.

2. No one is telling you to abandon your pacifism (the true pacificists) but you have give the moderates some space and working room. There are choices between all out war and peace which I am not going to outline here because I am not going to give it away.

3. Do not expect real, total peace on earth soon, it may take another 30, 50 to 100 years to attain what I think most people are hoping for. I think I am neing a realist when I say this.

[UdoKier]

50. Just for the record, I'm neiither a pacifist nor a moderate.

I consider myself to be very liberal, but I do recognize the need for military action from time to time. Iraq was clearly not one of those times. In general terms, I stand behind what I said, but in the case of the Iraq war, the fraud was too obvious, and no democrat worth a damn should have supported it in any way.

Kerry should have, and the next candidate will have to frame it such that the democrats are the ones who really want to fight the war on terror, and that includes a hardline on the Saudis who after all, attacked us. Much could have been made of Bush's incessant coddling of the murdering Saudi despots, and the fact that Bushco blocked all investigations into Saudi terror funding before 9-11.

So, while my statement might have dovetailed into the point you wanted to make, I have a strong feeling I would disagree with whatever plan you'd like to enact.

[moddemny]

52. It's your plan man......

You were off to a good start, keep thinking, don't run away now. C'mon be the peace loving, law abiding citizen who when mugged once too many times wasn't afraid to hit back. Defense is not a bad thing.


"Use the right's aggressive rhetoric, but once in office, quietly make every effort to move toward peace while keeping up a strong posture"

"Use the right's aggressive rhetoric, but once in office, quietly make every effort to move toward peace while keeping up a strong posture"

"Use the right's aggressive rhetoric, but once in office, quietly make every effort to move toward peace while keeping up a strong posture"

"Use the right's aggressive rhetoric, but once in office, quietly make every effort to move toward peace while keeping up a strong posture"


Keep drumming it in.

Everybody fall in line, act like a troop and win instead of squabbling with one another and doing your best to make enemies of your friends.

Want some examples of friends of the left who DUers are trying to make enemies? Just a few.(this comment is for the thread and not specifically directed at udokier)

Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Joe Lieberman
Joe Biden
Bill Maher
Michael Moore has a number of transgressions in the extreme left book.
Moveon.org doesnt cut it anymore
Even Jon Stewart has done wrong
Half (probably more than half) of you sh*t on Kerry

(I could keep going on, but I think I have made my point.)

Dean always winds up somehow the hero.

Everyone is just a sellout even if they had moderate ideas way before Bush stole the oval office.

God Forbid someone should agree with a moderate.

[UdoKier]

54. I'm all for moderates.

But the Clintons, Lieberman and Biden are not moderates, they are conservatives.

"moderate" is about ideology, not support for a war.

The people you named have voted consistently in favor of the continued privatization of our country, globalization, outsourcing, etc. They are CONSERVATIVES.

The fact that someone supports an illegitimate war like Iraq may not make them a conservative, but it sure as hell makes them a criminal.

Bill Maher has always been a libertarian capable of annoying the left. His recent statements don't surprise me.

As I said, I would use the rhetoric, but I draw the line at cold-blooded murder of our troops and innocent civilians. That's what the Iraq war was, and any democrat (or republican) who supported it may or may not be a moderate, but they are accessories to murder.

You forget that there were a number of paleocons who were against this war as well.

Michael Moore is hardly an extreme leftist - I defy you to cite even ONE instance where he took an "extreme left" stance.

Your post started out okay, but you're taking it dangerously close to freeperland. Too close for my taste.

[moddemny]

55. Before I start a three hour typing job.....

On privatization, globalization, outsourcing etc and where each candidate stands, I want to add some clarity to something that was misinterpreted (the typing job may have to wait until the weekend)

"Michael Moore has a number of transgressions in the extreme left book."

By that I meant the extreme left has knocked Michael Moore, I did not call Michael Moore extremely to the left.

"dangerously close to freeperland"

I was waiting for that, even though I am not a member there, never was. I voted Clinton,Gore,Kerry I wonder where that would get me on freeperland.

[UdoKier]

57. I said dangerously close.

I have no way to know who's a freeper and who's not, but I don't see the democratic party as a liberal party it's a center-right corporate party, so I really don't identify much with people on it's right flank. You call them moderates, but how can they be? Who is to their right? Zell Miller?

I'm happy that you voted for Clinton, Gore and Kerry. They are fine conservative democrats. (Okay, Kerry is a statist/militarist moderate). But I'm sick of always sliding THEIR way. They get ultra-right-wing presidents like Reagan and Bush II in office, when the hell does our chance for an actual liberal president come around? The last one was Johnson, and he was a warmonger par excellence.


Thanks for the clarification on Moore. I wasn't aware that he had pissed off the left somehow. I'm a huge fan of his and willing to overlook some of his flaws.

Seriously, I'm not accusing you of being one - I just think your rhetoric is too right for my taste. Since you consider Lieberman a "moderate", you must be aware of the "moderate" elements over at freeperville...

[Swamp Rat]

49. Yaay! Boxer and Dean!

BOOO! Alien lizards!

... I need a good photo of Biden. :D

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[BeFree]

56. Isolationism

Talk about bringing it all back to America. Help America First.

The country is tiring of expending our resources overseas. Dems need to take the lead in saying America first, and listen to blubbermouth as he begins backtracking on his world wide expansion plans.

We, of course, will continue to be engaged in, and contribute too, the rest of the world's needs: we just need to make it politically harder for the crooks to continue their outrageous Pnac planning.

[leesa]

58. It amazes me that so many people do not understand that abusing people

makes things worse and not better. Bombing people's families, friends and homes INCREASES terrorism...very simple concept. Must be the result of a lot of weird parenting.