PNAC Democrats

Well, it's just one more way that our two party system sucks. I guess I agree with militarist jerks like Peter Beinart, Ivo Daalder, Michele Flournoy, Will Marshall, Michael O'Hanlon, and James Steinberg on some domestic issues that aren't really important to me. But I disagree with almost everything I ever hear them say. These people aren't interested in America's national security. They're interested in pet imperialist projects.

"Collaborating" is precisely the right word. The whole Lind piece is a fun smackaround. Surprisingly, it's even more enjoyable to watch Leiven go after Lindsay.

Want more troops? If any of these signatories are serious about more troops, then the letter will call for a draft.

Skimming the letter, it simply calls for lots and lots more troops, with no mention of where they'll come from, ignoring the recruiting shortages of the past few years. A text search for "draft" came up empty.

We need to make sure that neocons and other strong supporters of the Iraq war are discredited and shunned. Our attitude should be that it is a disgrace for these people to even show their face in public, let alone run for reelection or publish articles. Others who collaborate with them in some way should definitely be criticised for doing so.

This is how public morality is upholded, in order to prevent disasters like the Iraq war from happening again.

"You and what army?" used to be a schoolyard taunt. Now it's the elephant in the foreign policy pundit club room.

Interesting CSM article from 2003 comparing the US in Iraq with the Soviets in Afghanistan. They also went in Rumsfeld style - light troops, and expecting a short engagement. They were there 'til 1989. So we could be looking at a 2013-ish pullout if these PNAC-ers get their way.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1120/p06s01-woiq.html

-J

Judging from reactions to the TV show Jericho, more and more folks seem to think nuclear war is survivable, with just a little grit and determination -- just another kind of war. PNAC Democrats are probably among this number, since the ultimate prize they seem to have their eye on -- regime change in Iran -- could all too easily become a nuclear nightmare.

Some thoughts about an increasingly oblivious world poised on the edge of the abyss: Dr. Strangelove, please keep an eye on your toys. Your grandchildren are getting forgetful.

So even admitting that these letters and what they call for are perfectly defensible, Any Democrats that sign them should ipso facto be considered & treated as Neoconservatives because such actions might indirectly serve Neoconservative interests.

Sorry, but this type of McCarthyism is not something I'm getting on board for; and I think those getting on board for such things with advanced knowledge that their accusations are most likely untrue is even more morally pernicious.

So even if we admit that these letters call for perfectly practical & reasonable things, and that the Democrats signing these letters are doing so because they are practical & reasonable, we should accuse them of pernicious neoconservatism because despite their innocence, their actions may indirectly serve the cause of neoconservatism.

Sorry, but this is not the kind of Mccarthysim I can get on board with. And I think the decision of some to promote such tactics with the express knowledge that their accusations are likely untrue, is especially morally pernicious.

Sorry, but this is not the kind of Mccarthysim I can get on board with. And I think the decision of some to promote such tactics with the express knowledge that their accusations are likely untrue, is especially morally pernicious.

We've been rolled by the PNAC Democrats for five years, and you don't think it's fair to be suspicious of suspicious affiliations? The neocons are genuinely bad people, working in support of a truly unamerican Administration, and you're worried that the people without power are being too mean. Great. Sorry to lose you. Don't let the door hit you on your way over to the Republicans.

dd

DRR, you aren't Dennis R Redmond, are you? Cause if so, you've really lost your head in the past few years (not that you'd be the only one...)

As for me, I wouldn't want any of my allies throwing in with known prevaricators and delusional nutsacks, and I don't think it's McCarthyist to tell them that they risk not being listened to anymore if they keep throwing in with such. And signing a letter along with such, no matter how "practical and reasonable" its content, is a pretty strong statement that you don't mind too terribly being associated with such, which, while one's right, is also one's cross.

On preview: what Tim said.

Matt: why the sudden reaction to this January 2005 letter? My calendar says it's October 2006.

I don't suppose it's ever too late to be giving people grief for making common cause with idiotic ideologues, but still: what gives?

RT: I can't speak for all the Dems who signed onto that list but I know Daalder plays a clearly dishonest game. He acts upset at the neocons as if he had real opposition to the Iraq adventure (who wouldn't) but he has never said it was time to get out or fix a deadline to get out. He posts often at Josh Marshall. He is really dishonest acting as if he opposes something he does not.

What's this "national greatness conservativism" of which neo-cons have claimed the mantle?

It seems to me that "national greatness conservativism" would be about conserving what's made this country great. And what's made this country great are exactly the sorts of Rooseveltian/Trumanian (and the DLC completely misrepresents Truman, who today would be viewed by the DLC and friends as "a shrill partisan" and his emphasis on containment over conflict would be seen as tantamount to capitulation) policies (both foreign and domestic) that so-called conservatives of all stripes actually are working to undermine.

So, even if Lind might not be quite to my taste, I would certainly feel comfortable calling him a "national greatness conservative". Meanwhile, especially now that the Kissinger is out of the bag, can we stop pretending that neo-con foreign policy is some return to a TR or Wilsonian foreign policy (and that those of us who oppose it are cynical realists) and admit that it's just window dressing for exactly what got us into the mess, we realized we were in on 9/11, in the first place? The neo-cons often correctly ID the problem, but their proposals indicate that they are part of the problem, not the solution.

DRR,

Let me use an analogy: Let's say ELF, the Earth Liberation Front, wrote a letter to the President stating their concerns for an oncoming oil crunch based on economic predictions of "peak oil." The letter suggests that, as a solution, the U.S. should increase its renewable energy funding by 100%, install windfarms in high-yield, windy locations all across America, and increase the fuel efficiency standards of American cars. Would you sign on? Of course not.

PNAC's letter is worse though. Not only does it come from an organization that has proven, over and over, its illegitimacy, the letter itself is crap. PNAC's solution written out in their letter is NOT going to happen. It's gamesmanship. It's political posturing. It's pie-in-the-sky wishing-on-a-star b.s. It calls for an increase of 25,000 troops every year for the next "several" years. The only way the U.S. could get that many more troops would be a draft, and nowhere in that letter do they mention that word. Without acknowledging the need for a draft, calling for that many more troops is simply irresponsible.

The letter also mentioned a "broken army" because of extra troop rotations, unless we increase the size of our marine and army. Does it mention at all that hey, maybe getting out of Iraq is a good way to solve this problem? No. It doesn't even address such a concept. And if go back in history a bit and look at the "hollow" army after Vietnam, it's pretty clear that increasing troop levels won't prevent that problem.

Also, what will more troops do? The letter is obviously addressed at the Iraq situation. Well, Iraq is a quagmire that, at a low-ball estimate, will require over 300,000 troops, right now, to even have a chance. You think Iraq's going to easier, or harder, to handle over the next "several" years as troop levels magically increase and are magically trained and are magically deployed?

The letter is irresponsible crap. Most of PNAC's policies are irresponsible crap. Giving the organization legitimacy gives all their letters, even the ones that might make sense, too much respect.

della - thanks for the response, but my real question is: given that the letter is nearly two years old, why is it suddenly an issue now??

Here is a simple rule of thumb, anyone calling for more troops as the solution without explaining where those troops will come from cannot be considered serious about foriegn policy.

These guys, McCain, Sullivan, etc shoudl all be ignored.

PNAC democrats are an issue now because one of them reviewed Lind's book in a nasty, passive-aggressive sort of way. So Lind quite properly gave him a smackdown as somebody who should not be taken seriously on foreign policy, given his expressed beliefs in the past. Hopefully this will happen whenever one of those toads pops up pretending to be "sensible".

"...they serve to further cement the notion that people like Frank Gaffney, Bill Kristol, Cliff May, Daniel McKivegan, Danielle Pletka, and Gary Schmitt should be taken seriously as authorities on national security policy..."

I know I'm late to this thread, but I've got to say this post verifies my long held belief that you are a pretentious twit and you will never amount to a pimple on Bill Kristol's ass.

I do not believe that a Democrat should sign on to anything the PNAC does. The reasoning is because in the future, when this Iraq debacle is judged in history, the PNAC will be seen as one of the major contributors to the most ill advised military ventures in American history.

They may include items which are agreeable, but overall, their basic premise has been shown to be wrong, over and over. A broken watch is right twice a day. Democrats should not sign on just because the watch occasionally reflects reality.

I look forward to the day when I teach the history of the current period and I will be able to detail the ineptness and callousness with which they boondoggled the American people into a war.

I've got to say this post verifies my long held belief that you are a pretentious twit and you will never amount to a pimple on Bill Kristol's ass.

Well, gee, Wayne, in a world in which a sane person gave a fuck about what some Red thought, that might be really hurtful to Yglesias.

Was my comment too long? Lol.

Matt is exactly correct of course. I wouldn't sign the American Communist Party's petition for universal health coverage either. Because there are strings attached. These folks are being useful idiots. They are the fig leaf of cover that will come around when it's time to bomb Iran, and screw that up too.

If Pat Robertson had a petition stating the sky was blue, I wouldn't sign that either, because next thing you know, Pat would be saying that I agree with him, that the baby Jesus was crying blue tears in the sky because of the homos.

I guess we can accurately sum up PNAC Democrats who continue to gargle the Koolaid regarding this war in Iraq and throwing in their ot with nutjobs like Bill Kristol can be summed up thusly: They're getting tired of public service and really don't have much of an interest in winning re-election or being taken seriously any more.

I'm trying to remember why those guys are considered "liberals" in the first place. They're in favor of empire, happy to support unprovoked invasions of other countries, and often to be found suggesting that it's okay to "moderate" the liberal platform on most domestic policies ranging from reproductive rights to the 1st and 4th Amendments.

I mean, what is it? Do you get to call yourself a liberal just because you don't use words like "nigger" and "feminazi"? Someone explain this to me, please.

wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
Sağır Oda
dizi izle
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
dizi izle
resim galerisi
haber
forum
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması

thanks for all ;)

r10.net

geciktirici

seks shop

Thanks...

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
sex
mirc
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye

I like html emails today with faster internet connections normal emails are extremely boring.

thank you

youtube
yuotube
yotube
youtobe
video sitesi
video siteleri
izlesene
yutup
www.youtube
youtube izle
video izle
youtub
youtup