Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House

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
 
Orwellian_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:15 AM
Original message
This is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House
This is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House

By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet. Posted November 20, 2008.

A who's who guide to the people poised to shape Obama's foreign policy.

U.S. policy is not about one individual, and no matter how much faith people place in President-elect Barack Obama, the policies he enacts will be fruit of a tree with many roots. Among them: his personal politics and views, the disastrous realities his administration will inherit, and, of course, unpredictable future crises. But the best immediate indicator of what an Obama administration might look like can be found in the people he surrounds himself with and who he appoints to his Cabinet. And, frankly, when it comes to foreign policy, it is not looking good.

Obama has a momentous opportunity to do what he repeatedly promised over the course of his campaign: bring actual change. But the more we learn about who Obama is considering for top positions in his administration, the more his inner circle resembles a staff reunion of President Bill Clinton's White House. Although Obama brought some progressives on board early in his campaign, his foreign policy team is now dominated by the hawkish, old-guard Democrats of the 1990s. This has been particularly true since Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in the Democratic primary, freeing many of her top advisors to join Obama's team.

"What happened to all this talk about change?" a member of the Clinton foreign policy team recently asked the Washington Post. "This isn't lightly flavored with Clintons. This is all Clintons, all the time."

Amid the euphoria over Obama's election and the end of the Bush era, it is critical to recall what 1990s U.S. foreign policy actually looked like. Bill Clinton's boiled down to a one-two punch from the hidden hand of the free market, backed up by the iron fist of U.S. militarism. Clinton took office and almost immediately bombed Iraq (ostensibly in retaliation for an alleged plot by Saddam Hussein to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush). He presided over a ruthless regime of economic sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and under the guise of the so-called No-Fly Zones in northern and southern Iraq, authorized the longest sustained U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam.

Under Clinton, Yugoslavia was bombed and dismantled as part of what Noam Chomsky described as the "New Military Humanism." Sudan and Afghanistan were attacked, Haiti was destabilized and "free trade" deals like the North America Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade radically escalated the spread of corporate-dominated globalization that hurt U.S. workers and devastated developing countries. Clinton accelerated the militarization of the so-called War on Drugs in Central and Latin America and supported privatization of U.S. military operations, giving lucrative contracts to Halliburton and other war contractors. Meanwhile, U.S. weapons sales to countries like Turkey and Indonesia aided genocidal campaigns against the Kurds and the East Timorese.

...

http://www.alternet.org/audits/107666/this_is_change_20_hawks%2C_clintonites_and_neocons_to_watch_for_in_obama%27s_white_house/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Jesus christ. The bitching has already started and Obama hasn't been in office 1 day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orwellian_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. Hey remember
when Bush took office and all the old Reagan re-treads were coming back from the grave? Remember all the criticisms that were in fact on the mark and justified?

Are you suggesting criticism shouldn't be levied in the same way as Obama not only brings back Clinton re-treads but also reactionary elements from such think tanks as PNAC?

Just calling it bitching is dismissive and indicates the manner of lock-step thinking prevalent these days in the bi-partisan Empire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. My god! He is bringing in CLINTON people?!?! People from the only other recent Democratic Presidency
Democrats who have actual experience in the executive branch!??!

How dare he!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orwellian_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Yes they have experience
They have very long records.

Just saying they have 'experience' conveniently omits the next question: "What is that experience?"

Now it's on you to actually look into that very ugly track record. It appears you are not interested in that. Might shatter some illusions.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. It's all about who they were working for.
Obama will be keeping a close eye on them. He's not a puppet like Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
2. I am honestly concerned about these Clintonian DLC appointments.
I hope he knows what he's doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. He knows exactly what he is doing
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #18
25. Okay.
:)

I will say that the Clinton administration was a well-run outfit, with some exceptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
3. Again with this fucking garbage?!
One flamewar wasnt enough?! Has the locked thread even sunk to the bottom yet? GEEZUS!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Tell me about it
I think the Admins need to check some IP addresses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. Its getting rather tiresome...
Between the "the Clintons are the root of all evil" threads... and the "Obama hasnt lived up to my unrealistic expectations" threads - I feel like this whole board has become a satire site.

Seems like some people just cant be happy about anything - ever. And every day it gets worse and worse. man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #14
23. It's been going on for MONTHS -- now, they're just attacking PEO, too
:eyes:

I need a drink!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #14
36. The problem is that a lot of people didn't vote for Obama because they thought Obama was awesome
they voted for Obama because they hated the Clintons and thought he shared that same irrational hatred.

I, for one, am VERY pleased with Obama thus far... because I voted for Obama because I thought he was an excellent choice for president and will do a good job.

Looking at the good job he has done selecting his cabinet it seems that I was right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orwellian_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. Why would such a thing as open discussion
about these questionable potential appointees and advisors be discouraged?

Seems that censorship of such discussions is what we should be concerned about not the promotion of such censorship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. You tell me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moochy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. Open Discussion? Sounds scary..
Pom poms for your hands and duct tape for your mouth! Thats the way!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
4. Progressive Congress conservative White House.
That is something we haven't tried for awhile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. There may be about 50 progressives in Congress.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
predfan Donating Member (769 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
5. Certainly doesn't promise the kind of change we'd gotten with, say, McCain-Palin.
Next thing you know, Obama will be nominating Supreme Court Justices who don't fit the Clarence Thomas template.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
12. IBTL
The last thread with the same article turned into a flamewar and was locked. So will ths one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
13. IBTL
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
16. Um, Saddam was propped up by the Rethugs to begin with and was a
constant nuisance. If I remember correctly, the majority of American people backed Clinton on his dealings with Iraq, including me. At least Clinton never tried to start a ridiculous war, he learned his lessons in Haiti and Somalia, which were peace-keeping (!) missions! My God, Clinton is soooo evil. I hate the rewriting of history and I am not even a big Clinton fan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orwellian_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. Well
You just did a bit of re-writing yourself.

You do not remember correctly.

Those "dealings" you take so lightly killed over a million with easily one third of those being children.

You may also be in need of a historical review on Haiti (and much else) and while doing so examine Clintons' role in what was a despicable and predatory chapter in American history. And now we are to be okay with the fact that some of the people involved are being considered to be "qualified" for the next administration? Strange qualifications indeed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. Clinton tried to do something about Haiti, there was no good choices there
Edited on Thu Nov-20-08 11:14 AM by Jennicut
It was the military or Aristide. Who was he suppossed to pick? I think you just want Clinton to be seen as evil and bad, which is not true. He made mistakes but he is not Bush.

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/clincoerton.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. NO
Nothing in the Iraq trade restrictions mandated a single person had to die - it was the choice of the Iraqi government to not import the necessary food and medicine which would have been perfectly allowable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
17. YAWN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
20. Jesus, he hasn't even been inaugurated yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
22. Yeah, I hope Obama concedes so that McCain/Palin can come in and save us NM
:crazy: :wtf: :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. Yes - let's discard the good because while we yearn for the impossible perfect NT
;k;l
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
26. IBTL... and YAWN....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
28. Oh Christ not again
a) change from BUSH.

b)only the insane would name any of these people neocons.

c) The overall beef seems to be Obama is not picking exclusively 100% pacifists to foreign policy slots. Does anyone but that extreme fringe want anyone that unrealistic in such a position? Wars are never pleasant, but are sometimesd necessary

d) Yugoslavia?? Revisionism at its finest. Yugoslavia was dead long before we got involved - and we got involved to stop far more of the former Yugoslavians from killing each other than actually did because they never really thought of themselves as Yugoslavians anyway, but Serbs or Croats etc. Why do I get the feeling that the same people who whine abiut Yugoslavia want us to do something to stop the genocide in Darfur? How is that possible without killing the people who won't stop committing genocide unless we do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
31. You were busy so he had to go with these other losers.
Edited on Thu Nov-20-08 12:11 PM by cliffordu
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knixphan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
32. we definitely need more progressives in congress
...and of course, as citizens we need to keep our eyes open. Not pessimistic, just aware. It's our duty.

I canvassed for Barack. I'll trust him until he gives me a reason not to-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
33. I didn't realize Obama ran against Bill Clinton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marrah_G Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
34. ZOMG THE CLENIS IS COMING THE CLENIS IS COMING!!!!!!!!!!
:eyes:

You people really need therapy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
35. Jeremy Scahill Is Obviously A Completely Irrational And Ignorant Moron. Do You Support Him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happychatter Donating Member (619 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Obama couldn't do one right thing six months ago... now if you criticize him. you're a "moron"
I disagree with scahill

but you?

back to the bin with ALL of you hypocritical MF needless shit stirrers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Wow, What A Completely Off The Mark Response. Soooooooo Misguided.
Couldn't do one right thing six months ago? What the hell are you talking about? :crazy:

And you equate the absolutely irrational and moronic ramblings of scahill above as mere criticism? Are you so closed minded as to really think that my statements about scahill mean that ANY criticism would relate to one being a moron? What a huge stretch of the flawed imagination that one is.

And hypocritical? Nope. Not one bit. Your post was a complete and utter failure and mess. Care to try again? :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happychatter Donating Member (619 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
37. Agents of Change on Obama's Transition Team
by David Corn of Mother Jones

"The Agents of Change on Obama's Transition Team

Last week, the Obama transition team announced its agency review teams, which, according to the office of the president-elect, will examine key departments, agencies, and commissions, as well as the White House, to provide Barack Obama and his key advisers “information needed to make strategic policy, budgetary, and personnel decisions prior to the inauguration.” As the media and most political consumers focus on who will get what senior position in the Obama administration, this group of about 130 people will do the nuts-and-bolts work of preparing the agendas for the incoming decision-makers. It’s an important band of policy wonks and government experts. Many of the positions were filled, as might be expected, by Washington players who served in the Clinton administration. For instance, Reed Hundt, who chaired the Federal Communications Commission during the Clinton years and who now works for a strategic consulting firm, is leading the team responsible for international trade and economic agencies. And Tom Donilon, a partner at the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers, who was assistant secretary of state for public affairs in the Clinton administration, is in charge of the group focusing on Foggy Bottom. (The bio for Donilon released by the transition office neglected to mention his stint as general counsel and executive vice president at Fannie Mae.)

The transition team has its share of lobbyists--despite that Obama once vowed he was “running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over.” But while most of the transition team members possess the conventional resumés of Washington insiders—albeit Democratic ones--there are several transition team appointments that stand out as harbingers of change. Or at least potential harbingers. These are people whose careers have been anti-Bushian in a deep and profound sense that extends beyond partisan difference. They are academics or policy advocates who have devoted much—if not all—of their adult working lives to advancing the public interest. Their presence on the review teams—even though the transition could use more of such people—enhances the prospect for change beyond the usual. Here’s a sampling:

Sarah Sewall is leading the transition’s national security team. She is the director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. According to her bio, her “research focuses on U.S. national security strategy, civil-military relations, and the ethics of fighting insurgencies and terrorism.” The ethics of fighting terrorism? That’s about as non-Bush (or non-Cheney) as it gets. She also started a project to create “a military concept of operations for intervening to halt mass atrocity.” Not even Bill Clinton did that.

Clark Kent Ervin heads the Homeland Security Program at the Aspen Institute. He was the first Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security—a Bush appointee. During his tenure at DHS, he released several reports assailing mismanagement and security screw-ups. Not surprisingly, when his appointment expired, Ervin was not re-appointed by Bush. With Rand Beers, who worked on counterterrorism for the National Security Council in both the Clinton and Bush II administrations, Ervin will oversee the transition’s review of the Department of Homeland Security. His participation sends a signal: competence and diligence matter.

Thomas Perez is head of the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation. He has spent years as a consumer advocate and civil rights lawyer. He’s also been a law professor specializing in poverty law and public health issues. During the Clinton years, he was a federal prosecutor in the civil rights division of the Justice Department. For the transition, he’s working on both the team in charge of justice and civil rights issues and the unit zeroing in on the Department of Health and Human Services. A Justice Department influenced by Perez will be quite different than one influenced by Monica Goodling.

Theodore Shaw is president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., a prominent civil rights law outfit. He has handled school desegregation and capital punishment cases. Shaw represented a coalition of African-American and Latino students in the historic case involving the use of affirmative action at University of Michigan for undergraduate admissions. The US Supreme Court struck down the school’s undergraduate admissions policy but ruled that race can be considered during the admissions process by a university seeking to foster diversity on its campus. Shaw is part of the transition’s Department of Justice unit.

Cruz Reynoso was the first Chicano person to serve on the California Supreme Court. There, he was a consistent liberal, often ruling in favor of environmental protection, individual liberties, and civil rights. He voted often to overturn death penalty sentences. Largely because of that, Reynoso, along with two other justices, became targets of conservatives and were ousted by the voters in 1986, under the state’s unusual judicial election system. Prior to becoming a state judge, Reynoso was director of California Rural Legal Assistance. Reynoso was a awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Clinton. For the Obama transition, he is reviewing the Commission on Civil Rights.

Spencer Overton, a professor at George Washington University law school, wrote the book, Stealing Democracy: The Politics of Voter Suppression. The book’s website says, “Voters don't choose politicians--politicians choose voters by manipulating election rules. What can we do to restore power to the people?” It continues: “While politicians spew shallow sound bites that describe a ‘free’ American people who govern themselves by selecting their representatives, in reality politicians from both parties maintain control by selecting particular voters. Incumbent politicians maintain thousands of election practices and bureaucratic hurdles that determine who votes and how votes are counted--such as the location of election district boundaries, long lines at urban polling places, and English-only ballots.” Overton is someone who has questioned the fundamentals of the voting system. He has called for “making voting easier for all Americans” and for “removing redistricting power from self-interested partisans.” He’s leading the team assessing the Election Assistance Commission.

For twenty-six years, Alan Houseman has been executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy, a nonprofit, public interest law firm that has focused on issues affecting low-income persons. Houseman has tried to develop innovative anti-poverty strategies and to ensure that low-income Americans have access to civil legal assistance. He is the model of a non-corporate lawyer. Houseman is working on the transition team’s review of the Legal Services Corporation.

Pamela Gilbert is a former executive director of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. For two decades, she was a leading consumer advocate in Washington. She served as consumer program director at the US Public Interest Research Group and was executive director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch. At the CPSC, she helped coax a 40-percent funding boost out of Congress and the Clinton administration. Then came the Bush years, and the CPSC was hollowed out. She will be reviewing the CPSC—think dangerous toys and poisonous pet food from China--for the transition team.

Bill Corr heads the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, one of the leading anti-tobacco nonprofit groups. He joined the outfit after spending 23 years working on Capitol Hill and in the executive branch. That is, he did not become a lobbyist for private interests. He is leading the evaluation of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Xavier de Souza Briggs is an associate professor at MIT. His specialty, his bio says, is “the ‘geography of opportunity’--a policy and research field concerned with the consequences of segregation by race and income and with efforts to respond, such as through ‘housing mobility’ programs that help families exit high-poverty, high-risk neighborhoods in search of better places to raise their kids.” Was there anyone in the Bush administration who had expertise in this field? Briggs is part of the transition unit looking at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Housing Finance Board, and the Interagency Council on Homelessness. (Joining him on that team are Roberta Achtenberg, who during the Clinton years became the first openly lesbian or gay federal official who had to be confirmed by the Senate, and Bruce Katz, a longtime housing policy wonk in Washington, who now runs the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution.)

With a presidential transition team led by an academic who has specialized in the ethics of fighting terrorism, it’s clear a major shift is under way in Washington. Certainly, there will be Democrat-on-Democrat policy battles ahead—during the transition and within the Obama administration. Centrist and conventional-thinking Democrats will play critical roles, especially during debates on economic matters. But the composition of Obama’s transition team shows there’s potential for significant change designed by public interest-minded people who possess deep policy expertise and are dedicated to their fields. These folks are the opposite of Michael Brown."

I like Scahill AND Corn

ya'all are a trip n you crack ME the fuck, UP

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
40. Obama will have a mix. However, I don't see Obama
as having exactly the same world view as what policy was during Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
41. Again, the "progressive" misuse of the word "neocon" takes the bite out of it
And the writer of this piece is an idiot. he's fortunate Alternet and Counterpunch exist or he'd be pounding out notes on a manual typewriter from a little shack in the wilderness.
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 Thu May 02nd 2024, 03:52 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