Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Whatever it is, we’re against it.
Posted by: Jon Henke on Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Yesterday, I wrote that "many voters have trouble taking the Democrats seriously on national defense [in part, because] the Democrats keep running away from the very policies they claim as their own". Here's a bit more on the topic...

During the '04 Primary campaign (Jan '04), Howard Dean acknowledged (to his credit) that "We‘ve always had a doctrine of preemption. We just never announced it and put it in everybody‘s face." The problem, he said, was not that we had the policy, but that we acknowledged it "in everybody‘s face". (work out for yourself how a President Howard Dean would have been any different, considering he'd just acknowledged the policy)
it's very difficult to tell what foreign policy positions the Democrats oppose and which they merely oppose until Jan 20, 2009.
And yet, in a letter to Democratic supporters in '03, Howard Dean wrote that "The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war is wrong for America."

More recently, Howard Dean accused Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of being an "anti-Semite" immediately before Maliki's speech to Congress. "Leading Democrats" wrote a letter to Maliki saying that his "failure to condemn Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself raises serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East."
This is the diplomacy of the Democratic Party? Name-calling and antagonism?
Now, on the merits, Dean and the Democrats may well be right that al-Maliki is an anti-Semite. But this is hardly the time or place to point this out. Maliki is the legitimate, democratically elected Prime Minister of a nation in whose legitimacy and stability we have a vital national interest. This is the diplomacy of the Democratic Party? Name-calling and antagonism? Frankly, it doesn't seem all that different from the administration they want to replace.

The Democrats have spent so long reflexively opposing Bush and anything associated with him that it's very difficult to tell what foreign policy positions the Democrats oppose and which they merely oppose until Jan 20, 2009.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Jon,

Howard Dean is not my favorite guy either, but I think you’re being a little unfair to him. The quote immediately after the first quote you mention is this:
If we had known Osama bin Laden was going to run planes into the World Trade Center 10 days ahead of time, of course we would have done something about it.
Dean is simply making the unremarkable point that of course you go after people/countries you are sure are going to attack you imminently. When he refers to the "Bush doctrine of preemption," however, he’s refering to the idea of invading a country that doesn’t pose any sort of imminent threat. He’s not being contradictory.

As for your larger point, you write:
The Democrats have spent so long reflexively opposing Bush and anything associated with him that it’s very difficult to tell what foreign policy positions the Democrats oppose and which they merely oppose until Jan 20, 2009.

Isn’t the converse true as well, though. Haven’t Republican positions on foreign policy over the last 6 years just been reflexively whatever Bush’s position is? There’s certainly nothing inherently conservative about his policies, and I get the distinct feeling that many (maybe most) GOP politicians have serious reservations about many Bush’s policies, but have generally kept them to themselves, at least until after Bush was re-elected.

When it comes to foreign policy especially, party positions generally reflect the views of whoever is the current leader of the party. For the GOP, that means Bush. Because the Democrats don’t have a clear leader, their positions vary more widely.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
There’s certainly nothing inherently conservative about his policies,
I’m a little lost here ... why must his policies be "inherently conservative?"

He’s a Republican, not a conservative. Shouldn’t his policies be inherently Republican and if so, wouldn’t you expect Republicans to line up behind them?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ~

What is an "inherently" Republican foreign policy? Would that be the foreign policy of Bush I or Bush II? Do you think that the foreign policy of John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, George Allen or Mitt Romney will mirror that of George Bush? I think AL’s point (that foreign policy is largely that of the President and the party is expected to support it) is right. What Howard Dean may have to say about foreign policy is completely irrelevant to what the policies of an actual Democratic president would be.
 
Written By: Steven Donegal
URL: http://
What is an "inherently" Republican foreign policy?
You tell me Steve, I have no idea ... but according to AL there must be something known as "inherently conservative" foreign policy.

I’m simply pointing out that George Bush isn’t a conservative, but a Republican, so if anything his foreign policy should be "inherently Republican" and if so, I see nothing strange about Republicans lining up behind something "inherently Republican" (whatever that is).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Dean is simply making the unremarkable point that of course you go after people/countries you are sure are going to attack you imminently.
Is that the distinction? I’m not sure that’s the case. Kerry seemed to think the distinction was simply the pursuit of diplomatic options. And I’m far from sure that ’imminence’ is a objective measurement. It didn’t seem to be at the time. Dean said that Hussein’s ability to give WMDs to terrorists would be grounds for unilateral invasion. He also said he wasn’t so much worried about whether we ended up in Iraq, as about whether we had enough allies, and that we should have simply given Iraq an ultimatum and then gone in within 60 days if they didn’t comply.

Which, you know, is pretty much what we did. Sans as many allies as Dean would’ve liked.

I’ve never been of the opinion that, after the first few months, a lot of troops would have been a net positive, and it wouldn’t have changed the underlying cultural dynamic in Iraq, so I’m not sure that we have been a big help beyond the first few months. It would not have hurt, though, and I do think we should have pursued a more stringent ultimatum and gotten more allies.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
according to AL there must be something known as "inherently conservative" foreign policy.
Yeah. Modest, uncomfortable with imposing cultural change by force, fiercely national interest (not fascist, just pro-US interest), and essentially fairly similar to the conservative distrust of imposed change by government.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Dean is simply making the unremarkable point that of course you go after people/countries you are sure are going to attack you imminently.
Of course. 20-20 hindsight is great, isn’t it?
When he refers to the "Bush doctrine of preemption," however, he’s refering to the idea of invading a country that doesn’t pose any sort of imminent threat. He’s not being contradictory.
When the threat is imminent, likely it’s too late.

Besides, we didn’t know what Saddam might be handing to whatever terror org back before we went in and sorted things out.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Yeah. Modest, uncomfortable with imposing cultural change by force, fiercely national interest (not fascist, just pro-US interest), and essentially fairly similar to the conservative distrust of imposed change by government.

I agree with Jon. All things being equal, this is what I think of as conservative foreign policy. But the fact that the GOP has rallied around Bush’s foreign policy over the last 6 years, which is anything but conservative, illustrates my point about the role of the president in setting the national debate on such issues.

As a general rule, the foreign policy position of the party that controls the White House is whatever the president says it is. Conversely, the party not in the White House tends to define its foriegn policy by contrasting it with the president. That’s why Democratic foreign policy at the moment seems so reflexively anti-bush and why Republican foriegn policy seems so reflexively pro-Bush. It was the same way during the Clinton era. Remember Bush and the Republicans criticizing "nation-buidling" and the war in Kosovo?

Foreign policy issues are complex and dynamic. It’s not like tax policy or abortion. So the positions of the parties are in constant flux and depend heavily on who occupies the White House.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
This is the diplomacy of the Democratic Party? Name-calling and antagonism?
It was John Kerry’s foreign policy if you remember, constantly denegrating the coalition of the willing members...
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
I agree with Jon. All things being equal, this is what I think of as conservative foreign policy.
OK. But again, since Bush isn’t a conservative (no matter what he claims or you claim ;)) how does this apply to him?

He’s a Republican, yes, but conservative ... hardly.
As a general rule, the foreign policy position of the party that controls the White House is whatever the president says it is.
Correct. And that would be a Republican foreign policy since he is also the defacto head of the Republican party. So why would you take issue with Republicans lining up behind his foreign policy?
That’s why Democratic foreign policy at the moment seems so reflexively anti-bush and why Republican foriegn policy seems so reflexively pro-Bush. It was the same way during the Clinton era. Remember Bush and the Republicans criticizing "nation-buidling" and the war in Kosovo?
Absolutely. I’m not disputing that point.

I’m simply trying to get a handle on your assertion that Bush’s foreign policy should be "inherently conservative" - especially with him not being a conservative. And you’re right, there are some Republicans who have reservations about his foreign policy ... and many of them are conservatives and my guess is most would likely happily accept Jon’s definition.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I’m simply trying to get a handle on your assertion that Bush’s foreign policy should be "inherently conservative"
I don’t think I made that assertion. I was just pushing back against Jon’s criticism of Democratic foreign policy. The title of his post is "Whatever it is, we’re against it." My point was that for Republicans politicians, you could just as easily write a post entitled "whatever it is, we’re for it."

I do have to take issue with your claim that Bush is not a conservative. We can get into a whole semantic debate over the definition of "conservative", but it’s pretty hard to deny that Bush has been the candidate of choice of nearly every self-avowed conservative in the country in the past two elections. And for quite a while, he was the darling of conservative movement in this country. He’s certainly more conservative than, say, your typical Democrat. So I’m not sure what it means to say he’s not a conservative.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
When it comes to foreign policy especially, party positions generally reflect the views of whoever is the current leader of the party. For the GOP, that means Bush. Because the Democrats don’t have a clear leader, their positions vary more widely.
The problem is not that Democratic positions are too variable. They are actually fairly homogenous, but incoherent. They are incoherent because the only organizing principle behind them is the conviction that whatever Bush believes must be wrong.

Christopher Hitchens once noted tartly, "Some things are true even if George Bush believes them."

Here is the perfect example, provided by Lawrence Kaplan, editor of the suddenly-paleo-liberal New republic:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kaplan23apr23,1,314177.story



 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
The problem is not that Democratic positions are too variable. They are actually fairly homogenous, but incoherent. They are incoherent because the only organizing principle behind them is the conviction that whatever Bush believes must be wrong.
Stop. Rewriting. History. Now.

How many Dems voted to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan? Iraq? Would you simply stop lying now? Please? If you were correct, not one Dem would have voted to give Bush the authorization to use force in these countries. But they did. In droves. Bush believed invading Iraq was the correct thing to do. Dems voted to let him do it. Many did. Even more did in the case of Afghanistan.

Jon is trying to re-write history too. He needs to. Most on the right do. Why? Because Bush’s foreign policy is a disaster. So instead of admitting that it is, it is necessary to find a domestic scapegoat. "Bush would have succeeded, but at every step the Dems opposed him. Whatever he was for, the Dems were against it."

Nonsense. And you know it Jon. Not only did many Dems authorize the use of force in Iraq, many have continued to vote for appropriations for the war, time and again. Time and again.

This kind of rhetoric is part and parcel of the "stabbed in the back" theory. Iraq is in chaos. And rather than concluding the obvious, that Bush completely bungled the war, right wingers need a scapegoat. It cannot be Bush’s fault. Because, if it is, then many of his left wing critics were right. And most on the right could never admit that.

You will see much more of this re-writing of history as Iraq descends further into chaos. Iraq is f*ck*d. Wingers know it. They just can’t admit they were wrong. So instead, they need a domestic scapegoat. Jon isn’t as direct as most. But he is on the team.

Shame on you Jon. You should know better.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
The Democrats have spent so long reflexively opposing Bush and anything associated with him that it’s very difficult to tell what foreign policy positions the Democrats oppose and which they merely oppose until Jan 20, 2009.
Really. They have? When? When? You mean when only 21 Democratic Senators - less than half - voted in 2002 against giving Bush authorizartion to use force in Iraq? Less than half. 29 voted for it.

Get your facts straight. Or is that too much ask?


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
And then Jon says this:
Dean said that Hussein’s ability to give WMDs to terrorists would be grounds for unilateral invasion. He also said he wasn’t so much worried about whether we ended up in Iraq, as about whether we had enough allies, and that we should have simply given Iraq an ultimatum and then gone in within 60 days if they didn’t comply.
So Dean agreed with Bush, but whatever Bush was for, he was against it?

Coherence Jon, coherence.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
The Democratic Left philosophy about National Security is to do nothing "unless the threat is immenent. With caveats. Protests can be made, bribes offered. If France joins in "sanctions" then they are OK as France’s moral authority makes them legitimate. Terrorism may be fought, but only if profiling is avoided, suitable apologies are constantly made for all the faults we have that force peaceful people to "resort to terror", and terrorist rights and civil liberties are foremost.

The Left may also be permitted to vote for a war (without condemnation) if it is not in America’s interests, humanitarian interests or for some other nation’s interests - a dispensation for certain Leftist politicians needing to please their constituencies...but they are obligated to immediately become anti-War right after that vote and charge they were "misled and betrayed" unless a Democratic Administration is in office. Thus Kerry, Schumer, Clinton, Nadler,exhonorate themselves to the Left by becoming Monday morning critics. Lieberman, who failed to deliver the expected Leftist recantation after pleasing his donors, is an apostate who must be cast out.

But generally, Dems believe Iran is free to nuclearize, China to aggressively militarize, N Korea to develop ICBMs without "illegal US military intervention"...And trust in talk, dialogue, the Voice of the UN to give them cover.

If the threat IS immenent, then and only then, as NORK and Iranian ICBMs are raised on the launchers or another 9/11 attack happens - may the US attack. Taking care that enemy civilians must never be killed, since the Left holds enemy civilian lives far more valuable than American soldiers. If an attack happens, then action is secondary to "The Investigation" - as the Left holds that any war Americans must remain "casualty-free" from enemy action. If Americans die by Jihadis, then clearly by Leftist logic - it is not the enemy’s fault, but the fault of National Security and military people of the agencies the Leftists hate and attack regularly seeking to defund and dismantle....who the Left believes "should know everything" while "still honoring enemy privacy rights and civil liberties".

==============================

As for al-Maliki being an anti-Semite and NOT an Israelphile - well, of course! He is an elected leader of one on the Islamist factions imbecilic Bush/Sharansky "democratic reform" making secular states into Islamic states, created. He RAN as a Shiite Islamist. Back when not just Bush but virtually all Democrats inc. Dean and Schumer hailed the mandate of the "noble purple-fingered freedom lovers".

No observant Muslim that follows the Qu’ran and Hadiths and strictly believes their teachings can be accepting of, and willing to treat Jews and other infidels and the pagans as full equals. At best, they are to be tolerated as subserviant second-class Dhimmis, with Christian, Druze, Alawite, Chaldeans rated as slightly more worthy of toleration than Jews, who the Prophet held were more deceitful and untrustworthy than other People of the Book. Alone of Muslim countries, only Syria has a large minority of non-Muslims who have been left in relative peace.

As this war between the West and the Muslims/Left goes on, don’t count on al-Maliki and other Iraqis to be any more tolerant towards Israel than the ACLU is of Christian culture.
===================================
Anonymousliberal -
Haven’t Republican positions on foreign policy over the last 6 years just been reflexively whatever Bush’s position is? There’s certainly nothing inherently conservative about his policies, and I get the distinct feeling that many (maybe most) GOP politicians have serious reservations about many Bush’s policies, but have generally kept them to themselves, at least until after Bush was re-elected.
There is some truth to that up to March 2005, not 6 years. Before that, there was enormous grumbling - that in the Democratic Party would have long beforehand occasioned one of the Dem’s patented Night of the Long Knives. Bush by refusing to listen to even his Republican Congress outside "The Leader Kinda Folk" finally precipitated a full revolt by ignored Republican moderates - and now the revolt has spread to the Reaganite and Bush I braintrusts. Who, Anonymous, have carefully laid out the case that Bush is not a conservative but a radical evangelizer the likes of which the Republicans hopefully never see again - who has bungled foreign and domestic policy and failed to check a greedy, corrupt Republican Congressional leadership.








 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
When he refers to the "Bush doctrine of preemption," however, he’s referring to the idea of invading a country that doesn’t pose any sort of imminent threat.

Like Kosovo. Where we didn’t find many mass graves that we were promised. Where we bombed civilian infrastructure. Where we did not have a UN mandate, etc., etc.

Meet the new boss. The same as the old boss.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I do have to take issue with your claim that Bush is not a conservative. We can get into a whole semantic debate over the definition of "conservative", but it’s pretty hard to deny that Bush has been the candidate of choice of nearly every self-avowed conservative in the country in the past two elections.
It’s pretty clear that Republicans were the party of choice for many libertarians, but that doesn’t make the Republicans libertarians.

Or said another way, in both elections, conservatives really had no other choice.

It’s one of the themes here, AL. Jon’s mentioned it a few times. Libertarians are taken for granted by the Republican party just as blacks are taken for granted by Dems. Same with conservatives. Where do they go? What real ’conservative’ choice have they had? So while Bush may have been nominally more conservative than the others, it hardly means he is a conservative. It simply means that of the field he was the least objectionable.

While conservatives are a decent size segment of the Republican party, they’re not a majority.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Well, I think this best lays out Bush’s foreign policy... (the hopes not the implimentation)
"Our Nation’s cause has always been larger than our Nation’s defense. We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace—a peace that favors liberty. We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. And we will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent." President Bush - West Point, New York - June 1, 2002
And I found this article by Chuck Hagel...

http://www.kas.de/upload/dokumente/trans_portal/hagel-artikel.pdf

First, the United States must remain committed to leadership in the global economy. ... This means that the United States must expand free and fair trade agreements and encourage intraregional trade and investment in developing regions.

Second, U.S. foreign policy cannot ignore global energy security.

Third, the United States’ long-term security interests are connected to alliances, coalitions, and international institutions. A Republican foreign policy must view alliances and international institutions as extensions of our influence, not as constraints on our power.

The fourth principle of a Republican policy should be that the United States must continue to support democratic and economic reform, especially in the greater Middle East. We cannot lose the war of ideas. In many developing countries and throughout the Muslim world, we are witnessing an intracivilizational struggle, driven in part by the generational challenges of demography and development. This is not a clash of civilizations, as in Samuel Huntington’s score, but one within cultures and societies about models of governance.

Fifth, the western hemisphere must be moved to the front burner of U.S. foreign policy. The process of economic integration that began with the North American Free Trade Agreement (nafta) must evolve into a comprehensive program for the entire Western hemisphere. Energy, trade, transportation, and immigration, as well as terrorism and illegal narcotics, are all critical to our national security interests.

Sixth, the United States must work with its allies to combat poverty and the spread of disease worldwide. This is one of the core challenges of governance in the developing world. Avian flu, severe acute respiratory syndrome (sars), hiv/aids, tuberculosis, malaria, and other possible pandemics can begin as acute crises in Africa and Asia but quickly acquire global reach and implications.

The seventh and final principle of a Republican foreign policy is the importance of strong and imaginative public diplomacy. The coin of the realm for leadership is trust and confidence, and popular discontent and questioning of U.S. foreign policy intentions will undercut our efforts in the war on terrorism and initiatives in the greater Middle East.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
It’s pretty clear that Republicans were the party of choice for many libertarians, but that doesn’t make the Republicans libertarians.
True, but many libertarians also voted for Kerry. More of them should, given how Bush subscribes to virtually no libertarian principles. But that’s another story. The fact is the GOP has never claimed to be a "libertarian party". It does however claim to be a conservative party and nearly ever single GOP politician describes himself/herself as a conservative, including Bush himself.

Now, I realize there is plenty of room to attack Bush for being "not conservative enough." But that doesn’t mean he’s not a conservative.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
Mr. Ultra,

I supported the war in Iraq, and I still believe that it was the right thing to do. Therefore, I am not scapegoating anyone, least of all Democrats, for the decision to go to war.

My position is that, in REACTION to the war in Iraq, as a RESULT of the perceived failure of the war in Iraq, the foreign policy of the internet Left has become ascendant within the Democratic party, and that foreign policy is incoherent.

It is true that Congressional Democrats voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war. The current thinking in the Democratic party appears to be divided between those who think that establishment Democrats must be replaced with new blood who will never cooperate with Republicans again, and those who buy into the new narrative that says the Congressional Democrats were all tricked by "Bush’s lies" into believing that Iraq might be a problem.

The people who were out in the streets covered in fake blood chanting "NO WAR FOR OIL!!" and arguing against the Iraq war on the basis that the whole thing was a pretext for Bush to carry out a genocide of brown-skinned people, now want to claim credit for the arguments that Republican Brent Scowcroft was making against the war back in 2002 and claim vindication.

Back in January, 2004 I saw the increasing shrillness and stridency of the Leftists with whom I had been debating on-line, and I warned them then that the foreign policy positions that they were staking out were not tenable. I was warning back then that if these positions became firmly identified with the Democratic party that they would tie the hands of future Democratic Presidents. Did you see the link I provided to the Lawrence Kaplan essay? The situation he describes is precisely what I had predicted.

 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
So, if I call myself Black, that makes me black, even though I lack the pigmentation??

One is not a Conservative, mearly because one adopts the label.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
when only 21 Democratic Senators - less than half - voted in 2002 against giving Bush authorizartion[sic] to use force in Iraq
In a nutshell this is what is wrong with Democratic foreign policy.

Why was there only 21 ? Because the foreign policy leaders of the Democratic party were so far behind the curve that the got stuck in the past. The past being that they opposed the 1991 Gulf War resolution, based on Viet Nam, and got burned politically. It was all reactionary.

Then, like now, it is all a political calculation, no foreign policy experience need to be applied.

QED ... there is no Democratic foreign policy
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Aldo,

What exact part of the internet left’s foreign policy is incoherent, and in what form is it so? That the war in Iraq was a mistake? That Israel’s bombing campaign has been badly conducted, indiscriminate, and counter-productive? That we’re skeptical of the ability of military force to remake the world in our image?

It’s Congressional Democrats whose message are incoherent, because they’ve been buggered by the Republican party and the conservative-controlled media. The ones that internet Democrats are trying to replace. What you mean when you say "incoherent" is "I disagree with it."
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Keith, Chuck Hagel’s speech is nothing whatsoever like either Republican or conservative foreign policy. If you don’t believe me, ask Tom Delay what he thinks of that list. Ask Michael Ledeen. Ask Rush Limbaugh.

Chuck Hagel is an orphan. He’s more at home in the Democratic Party right now.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Jon,

Keeping a neutral tone

"We’ve always had a doctrine of preemption. We just never announced it and put it in everybody’s face."

This statement neither endorses nor opposes said policy. Noam Chomsky would agree with it. Furthermore, not all pre-emptive measures are created equal, nor equal invasion and toppling of a government.

Furthermore, if you’re pointing out that Democrats have hardly stayed true to antiwar principles, but have joined Republicans in pandering to popular chauvinism at the expense of nuanced foreign policy, I wholeheartedly agree. That’s why we’re throwing out Joe Liberman, the biggest panderer of all.

But if you really wonder if the Democratic party is secrely a bunch of militaristic, unilateralist, American nationalists - this is an irrational conclusion. Howard Dean was a pro-gun deficit hawk who was known almost entirely for his fierce opposition to the Iraq war - in principle. For this sin, the Republican-led media embarked on a relentless campaign to politically destroy him - and they succeeded in killing his presidential run. He’s learned the error of his ways. He’s learned to pander a little. And here you sit, in the middle of a machine that requires people to pander to militarism, or destroys them, and you blame the Democrats, the party that houses whatever principled and public objection to the war in this country - such as Russ Feingold.

Are you beginning to get a little perspective on why I find this line of inquiry rather unfair and misguided?


 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
And I forgot entirely the final line:

The Democrats have spent so long reflexively opposing Bush and anything associated with him that it’s very difficult to tell what foreign policy positions the Democrats oppose and which they merely oppose until Jan 20, 2009.


You manage to slam Democrats for agreeing with Bush’s principles - the first Howard Dean quote - and for reflexively disagreeing with them - in the same post. I’d love to have you sort this out for me. Is this not in fact what you are doing here?

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Glasnost, while I see your point to a certain extent, your claim that the DP has a monopoly on the anti-war movement is factually incorrect. Yechh, I hate that term.

As an example of anti-war public figures:

Justin Raimondo
Patrick Buchanan (who also opposed Gulf War I)
Lew Rockwell
Robert Novak (arguably anti-war)
Thomas Fleming
Eric Margolis

None of these are exactly men of the left. In fact, the above paleo-cons claim to be the last defenders of the right in America today.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
Glasnost,

I would also point out that Michael Ledeen opposed the Iraq war as well
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
glasnost - well, he was proposing what a future Republican foreign policy might look like. Bush was stating what his policy is.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
????
??????
??
????
???
????
??????
??????
??????
?????
????
????
?????
????
????
????
????
????
??
????
????
??????
??????
??????
?????
????
????
??????
??????
??????
?????
????
????
????
??????
??????
????
????
??????
??????
?????
????
??
??????
????
????
??????
????
????
?????
????
????
????
??????
??????
????
??????
???
?????
?????
?????
?????
?????
?????
?????
?????
?????
??????
?????
?????
?????
??????
??????
??????
??????
??????
?????
??
????
??
???
?????
???
??
????
????
????
????
????
???
????
????
????
????
??????
????
????
??????
mp3????
??????
????
??????
mp3????
??????
????
??????
????
 
Written By: OOOYY
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider