leadership reinforcing a foreign policy that has divided us from the world

A QUESTION OF VISION
Sherle R. Schwenninger, The Nation

Rather than pointing us in a more constructive direction,
much of the Democratic leadership is reinforcing a foreign
policy agenda that has divided us from the world.

http://www.alternet.org/story/26352/

For the sake of party unity, many Democrats last year put aside their differences with John Kerry's foreign policy positions, in particular his tortured support for the war in Iraq.

Situating the party as close to the Bush agenda as possible without actually embracing it, it was argued, was a reasonable price to pay for taking back the White House. The gambit--of being long on national security and the "war on terror" and short on the economy and jobs--failed, however, to persuade working-class and suburban voters in places like Ohio and Missouri, reinforcing the public view that the Democrats have no mind of their own on issues of great national and international importance.

Unchastened, the neoliberal wing of the party wants the Democrats to repeat this gambit by toughening their rhetoric and committing yet more resources to the fight against what they describe as Islamic jihadism. In a New Republic essay late last year, Peter Beinart called on Democrats to rediscover their "fighting faith" and to commit themselves to a new generational struggle against "Islamic fascism."

More recently, Blueprint magazine, the house organ of the Democratic Leadership Council, published a statement on national security, signed by leading Democrats, urging the party to "make winning the war against Islamic jihadism the party's first priority." The group's agenda--prosecuting the global "war on terror," democratizing the Middle East and increasing the military's ground forces--is echoed by likely Democratic presidential candidates, including Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.

..more..

declared there were no WMDs.

Besides Zell Miller.

Realistically, not even Joe Lieberman would've invaded Iraq after weapons inspections proved there was no need.

but I don't think that is the point of the article.

Many of us do not share this viewpoint however:

a statement on national security, signed by leading Democrats, urging the party to "make winning the war against Islamic jihadism the party's first priority." The group's agenda--prosecuting the global "war on terror," democratizing the Middle East and increasing the military's ground forces--is echoed by likely Democratic presidential candidates, including Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.

Want to add fuel to the fire and create more violence and terrorism?
This is the tried and true formula IMO.

diplomatic efforts to bring it to the size manageable through aggressive law-enforcement - sometimes recognizing the need for targeted back up by special forces.

"win the war on terrorism" "I won't rest until we win"

bla, bla, bla

the Dem statement I quoted sounds all too similar to me.

before they make military moves. And most of the time they are successful in these pursuits.

BushInc puts on dog and pony shows to feign diplomatic efforts. That's it.

Rhetoric on goals may have similar wordplay but they definitely pursue their goals differently.

that is the reason given most often for terror attacks: occupying troops.


Give me some new, courageuos ideas and I'll be all ears.