'New Democrats' on Iraq - in their own words

Since so much discussion of various stands on the war has transpired lately, it seems appropriate as we approach the 1-year anniversary of "Mission Accomplished!" to remember what the president of the DLC's Progressive Policy Institute had to say at that time on the subject of Iraq (and the Democratic presidential candidates' stands thereon):

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=85&subsecID=65&contentID=251557

- bill

is his description, not mine.

Saturday night I did a real study of the DLC site. And today, by sheer accident, today I was told by someone who in Democratic circles in Washington, that it has been "infiltrated by the Republicans." It's so evident. Their policy is "bipartisanship." Which is fine, but first, shouldn't you put out your own views??? Look at the articles going after Michael Moore, "activists are wrong" and other gems.

Bayh, Carper, and Mann, that woman from PA....these people are all Republican-lite.

For those of you who rail against CLinton...This is no longer the Clinton version. Clinton has been sidelined. Gore has been sidelined. It is a different DLC. They invoke the name Clinton, but it's in historical terms.

This is why Wes Clark will not be VP. First of all, Wes. Jr. knew "people aren't what they seem." Gert said as recently as a few days ago that the party was against Clark...too military. Of coursed, the real reason is that his view of national security issues doesn't give a pass to what the Republicans have done. Clinton's FP team has lost. He lost on the idea that national security is the top issue. And Clark, whose Iraq policy is much like Holbrooke's is gone, too. Will Marshall is with the Kerry team. Kerry is wrong to even mention the UN, which is reviled in Iraq. Holbrooke knows it...he said it on Charlie Rose...no
"blue helmets" because Iraqis resent the UN. So, Richard Holbrooke won't be Secretary of State. He's on the wrong side now. And notice how quickly Ted Kennedy was "reprimanded" by the DLC when he said Iraq was "Bush's Vietnam." Don't be surprised he if pulls back his efforts.

Haven't you seen the change in how Clark has been talking? He's not in tandem with the Kerry policy. Kerry waffled and Clark is gone, on his own volition, most likely. And he won't be in any Kerry Administration, either. He's not in the right camp.

The GOP-infiltrated DLC is Kerry's choice. The Clinton camp is OUT. And Clark, the one with the clarity and crediblity, is gone. Guilt by association. By the way, the same Washington person said the DLC didn't want Hillary to run in New York..But she did anyway.

Look at how the shift has occurred over the last year, although TPTB have wanted Clinton out of the picture since the 2000 election....Sure, they'll trot him out for some events like that Unity dinner...and he is dying to help the party.... BUT....they've totally rejected his arguments about the election.....

DLC | Blueprint Magazine | July 27, 2003
Girding for Battle
Democrats can win in 2004, but only with the right battle plan.
By Al From and Bruce Reed
DLC Memo
TO: Fellow Democrats
FROM: Al From and Bruce Reed
SUBJECT: How Democrats Can Win in 2004

The Battle Plan
At a recent DLC meeting, Bill Clinton -- the last Democrat to beat an incumbent president -- outlined a three-part strategy for how a candidate could do it again: 1) reassure voters that he'll keep what they like about George W. Bush's policies; 2) tell them some things they don't know about George W. Bush -- and wouldn't like if they did; and 3) show that he'll give them what a second Bush administration won't.

Clinton remarked, "This is not rocket science. In 1992, I said: 'Look, I'll have a strong America, we'll represent your values, we'll be strong on crime, we'll be for preferring work over welfare. By the way, we'll bring the American economy back, we'll do it in a way that preserves the environment, we'll move more poor people into the middle class. ' The message was, we'll give you what you like about the other guys, and we'll give you these things that they won't give you. This is not complicated."

Here's how to turn the Clinton formula into a winning battle plan for 2004.
STEP # 1: Match Bush's Strength on National Security

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251924&kaid=127&subid=900056

8 months later…………………

Now, here is the very recent piece on how to win….they praise Clinton and brings up the “anger” crap! And then it proceeds to completely ignore the national security issue!!! I’m serious!!! So, is that the split?? They go for the economic issues….but are ignoring the national security issue! So, who the hell formulates any campaign policy on national security. It seems they’ve blown off the Clinton advice COMPLETELY after having focused on it last summer…..July 2003…when Wes Clark was hunting up support…..

DLC | Blueprint Magazine | March 23, 2004
The Road to Victory
Here are five rules for the Democratic candidate to follow in the coming battle for the presidency.
By Al From and Bruce Reed
TO: Sen. John F. Kerry
FROM: Al From and Bruce Reed
SUBJECT: How You Can Win
Congratulations! You've saved your party, and now you have a chance to save your country.

(snip)

Indeed, this primary campaign may prove to be the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party since Bill Clinton came along. Democrats were presented a clear choice: whether to continue Clintonism, with its pragmatic emphasis on offering positive solutions that excite Democrats and independents alike, or to revert to the party's old ways of running on anger instead of ideas -- a narrow appeal to the Democratic base. You won because once again, rank-and-file Democrats made the right choice. more

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=900056&contentid=252463

Will Marshall wrote Kerry's Georgetown speech, I think the Jan. 21 one, or maybe the Sept one, lost the link right now. He is the one who thinks Dean's "bushgate" and Kennedy's "Bush's Vietnam" are way out of line and could hurt Kerry.

That bothers me.

and that is one of the reasons why Clark is a goner. He was on Hannity and Colmes tonight. First time he dropped the game about VP. Said point blank he's back into his business interests.

Clark is also planning a PAC related to foreign policy. Well, his FP is not Kerry's.

This is why I don't think Clark will be VP anymore.

There may have been an early deal...Clark going right to Kerry, working as his "surrogate." I think he also wanted to prove himself to the party.
But the DLC part of the party has blown him off. After his current obligations are over, I'll be curious to see he he does much more.

Frankly, I think the Kerry bunch are missing the boat.

I feel sort of stunned at what is going on. No dissenting voices allowed. Clark was speaking out a lot, too.

I agree the VP will not be anyone Will Marshall and PPI/DLC don't want. That is too bad.

The problem with Clark as VP is likely more due to the fact that it would be TWO Catholics on a ticket.

Like it or not, that kind of bs matters.

I had high hopes for either a Kerry-Clark or Kerry-Edwards ticket.

My highest hope would be John Kerry/Julian Bond. ;)

:argh: anti catholicism bigots. You can still have the Kerry-Edwards, Edwards is Methodist not Catholic. Then I think that would mean, Richardson is off the ticket. Its amazing honest that we will have a Catholic pres, I know that doesnt matter to many and honest it realyl doesnt to me but then again it would be nice.

There is no significant difference I've seen in Kerry's and Clark's foreign policy views. What exactly are you saying there, Gloria? Also, Wes has said a few times since dropping out that he will be returning to his business concerns, I've heard him myself. I've never particularly thought he would be VP, but that does not mean he's out or gone. If asked, he will always serve his country and I feel sure Kerry will have a place for Wes's talents and experience. Wes is determined as ever to put John Kerry in the White House, as he blogged just two nights ago on CCN.

"The Kucinich campaign is sort of the Unclaimed Freight Outlet of Democratic politics, retailing every failed or outdated lefty idea with a fierce and touching passion."

You mean THAT insult, madFloridian??? LOL

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html



The section on terror and Iraq----



Here, in my view, is what this strategy should look like.

First, destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers. Now the Administration must redouble its efforts to track them down. And we need to pressure Pakistan to get control of its territories along the Afghanistan border, which have become a haven for terrorists.

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.

He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.

That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

And I say to the United Nations, show respect for your own mandates. Do not find refuge in excuses and equivocation. Stand up for the rule of law, not just in words but in deeds. Not just in theory but in reality. Stand up for our common goal: either bringing about Iraq's peaceful disarmament or the decisive military victory of a multilateral coalition.

Here's what Kerry published in the Washington Post just yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6753-2004Apr12

It's not in any way different from what Clark has been saying on the various news shows. Not one iota. There is no divergence, and no reason to think that the Kerry campaign isn't still behind Clark's appearances, as they have been since the endorsement.

In fact, where Kerry says "We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander." -- that is PURE Wes Clark talking. It's been his position since before he started his own run for the presidency.

Gloria, your theories are all wet. Clark may or may not become Kerry's running mate, but nothing materially has changed in the last two months. Clark's answer on Hannity & Colmes, about being "not interested" in who Kerry picks and getting back to his business was no different from what he has given all along. He hasn't said "no"; he has only said that it's not what interests him. Getting Kerry elected is his entire focus right now.

Up until now, there HAS been a difference in Kerry and Clark. Clark was directly confronting Bush on Chalabi, had mentioned PNAC and the possibility of several ongoing wars being launched in the ME area. Things Kerry would never touch.

I finally got it to work today. In all his previous discussions he was very direct on Chalabi...that the Admin. had to 'get past' Chalabi so that the Iraqi people wouldn't feel they had been occupied and the resentment they had toward Chalabi et al.

On NPR (4/14), he did a "commentary." Now, he says that Chalabi should be given "space" and "time so he can earn his place" so that the Iraqi people won't resent him.

My first reaction upon hearing this "commentary" was WHO WROTE IT FOR HIM?

So,now my questions are:

Has Clark been fully folded into the Kerry line on all this?
Or has he been told to back off, a la Kennedy and his "Vietnam" reference to Iraq?
Or...has he always felt this way and we're just finding out now??

His PAC is now set up to influence foreign policy discussion in the Democratic party. Well, in what way? If this is his opinion of Chalabi, I don't see much leadership...I see, "don't ruffle feathers."

I always hoped that Clark would pull people his way in terms of foreign policy. His mentions of PNAC (when he was dismissed as crazy) and possible wars in several ME countries were on the mark. His previous mentions of Chalabi--the ONLY one to bring him up at all....were really heartening to hear.

Now what? Is Clark going to be homogenized into the Kerry message so he can spurt out the "same old, same old??? Is this part of the deal? If so, this is very disappointing.


As far as Kerry on the UN stuff....Annan has been caustic about the US in the last day or two....and again, another report....on the BBC World Service this morning...the UN is not exactly loved by Iraqis..... At City University in NY, his talk was described as "vague"...This UN stuff is certainly a little vague, esp. since the UN may not have any respect at all in Iraq. It also opens the door to the attacks by rightwingers who abhor the UN.

...my memory is that what he actually said was something to the effect that the Administration needed to put some "space" between them and Chalabi, meaning--to me at least--let him sink or swim on his own.

As as for Teddy Kennedy being "told to back off" on his Iraq/Vietnam comparisons, there's a paragraph in the "Washington Whispers" section of the latest US News and World Report that reads something like this (don't have the issue in front of me so this may not be completely verbatim, but it's close):

"TEDDY ON THE TRAIL

Mass. Senator Ted Kennedy is said
to be so pleased by the reaction to
his speech comparing Iraq to Vietnam
and President Bush to President Nixon
that he's planning another salvo in a few weeks."

Sounds like both these guys have been totally cowed and intimidated by the DLC, que no? :evilgrin:

If it wasn't obvious, Kerry has called him "my surrogate" on numerous occassions, and I haven't heard the General say otherwise. It means Clark has to articulate Kerry's positions, not his own. I don't see them as being very different, but sure, he's bound to tone down anything that doesn't go along with what Kerry is saying or wants said. That's a whole lot different than Kennedy, who is not officially part of the campaign.

Sorry if that dissappoints you, but that's what being a subordinate means. You think a guy who's been in the military for 38 years doesn't know how to work for somebody else? Do you think Clark ever said anything in public as SACEUR that he thought was against President Clinton's policy?

It's not sucking up. It's the job Clark has voluntarily taken on, to accomplish the greater goal of sending Bush back to Crawford. It's called "team-work" and Kerry is the team captain, pure and simple.

Fwiw, I heard the NPR broadcast. Clark was reading from a pre-prepared speech, but probably just to ensure he stayed within his time allowance. I have no doubt he wrote every word. It was exactly what he's been saying on CNN, MSNBC and FOX over the last few weeks.

Clark is saying that Chalabi has to earn support of Iraqis or else he is out. He is saying that the Iraqi people should decide who the heads of state will be, not the US government.

Clark has been consistent as hell, he may have adjusted some rhetoric, but the substance is the same.

WTF has happened to my party?!

I'm going to think about joining the Independent party.

n/m

Work with DFA and 21st Century Democrats. These guys are here to divide and conquer for the Rethugs.

This is copyrighted 2000. A lot has gone on since then. This is a long article, but worth the read.

http://www.progressive.org/nich1000.htm

SNIP..."Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone echoed Jackson's view. "There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans," he said. "I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."

It's not surprising that Jackson, Wellstone, Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus, the AFL-CIO, the venerable Americans for Democratic Action, and other upholders of traditional Democratic values are aghast at the DLC. They have seen their party taken over by an ideological force that opposes almost all of what they stand for....."

A mention of the 2000 campaign and Gore's turn toward populism:

"But even as Gore hit the campaign trail with a "give 'em hell" stump speech that borrowed the old Roosevelt, Truman, and Ralph Nader critique of economic royalism, Lieberman was busily assuring a Wall Street Journal reporter that Gore's attacks on corporations were just "rhetorical flourishes." The ticket is "pro-business," he declared, adding, "Political rallies tend not to be places for extremely thoughtful argument."

Using the code that conservative Democrats and wealthy campaign donors have come to understand, the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate assured corporate America that he and Gore stood "ready to keep America changing in the New Democrat direction."...."

I think Gore kept on the populist path. Lieberman did not. Long article.

Now note the organization formed in 2003, www.americavotes.org
and see the power forming. DFA (Dean's new org) just allied with this group which includes MoveOn, the unions, ACT, environmental groups, etc.

Unfortunately it's all come true over the last four years. These DLC creeps started crawling into the party back in the 1990s, which alienated a whole bunch of progressives (like myself) who abandoned ship after the first couple years of Clinton.

However, it looks like the liberal/progressive wing of the party is quite energized this time around, and will definately be a force to be reconned with, at least at the congressional/state level if nowhere else.

Hell, even Kerry is talking like Dennis Kucinich on Iraq now. He's talking about bringing in the UN, relinquishing US control of the government and economy, opening up the rebuilding to non-"allied" countries, and giving up US rights to Iraq's oil.

Things are coming around: even if the candidate isn't our first choice, he's starting to speak our language.

Good for him. I dont think Kerry was pleased at all when they went after Teddy, remember Teddy is a loyal Kerry supporter and they are friends. We need a liberal/progressive party, I really think that, the party was most sucessful when they were liberal all around, not just on some things. I am glad Kerry is becoming more Kucinich like, Kucinich is getting the word out there just like he wanted to, remember when DK brought up diebold, Kerry and Edwards both brought it up, DK unfortunely isnt our nominee but Kerry is showing good promise. UN in, US out, whole heartly agreed with.

.

I think that he's always said that reconstruction should be an international effort without American domination, as has been observed elsewhere. While his position on the war itself was and remains execrable, his position on the aftermath has seemed fairly reasonable (though considerably short of Dennis's immediate hand-off-control-and-cut-and-run approach, which many people feel fails to address our responsibilities for continuing support of reconstruction).

- bill

I don't even know any background on Nichols except: "John Nichols is Editorial Page Editor of The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin."

Nichol's article has a "plentiful lack" of detail as regards specific policies. I would like to see a detailed comparison of Bush administration policies, DLC policies, and "typical" democratic policies.

What Nichol's appears to hold is that Bush administration policies are closer to DLC policies than the typical democratic policies are. But, as I said, there is a "plentiful lack" of detail in this regard.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903.htm

Kerry could always make me less disturbed by not using Marxhall anymore, particularly given the fact that Marshall is directly linked to the organization that created this bloody mess in Iraq.

need to be stomped on like the cockroaches they are.

And that Kerry has ANY association to the PNACers makes me gag -- he needs to answer some questions about that and STAT.

including Kennedy.

You prefer Kerry be like Bush who ONLY hears from the far right?

to the PNAC I wouldn't trust as far as I could THROW on foreign policy.

I have no problems with Kerry getting advice from centrists -- I DO have a BIG problem with him getting advice from someone sleeping with the enemy.

to the majority of rightwingers of PNAC.

.

because of his association with Kennedy. People dont like Kerry being compared to JFK, well ya know what Ted is one who says that his service in Nam is like that of his brother's in WWII.

Um, nevermind.

Here's the thing. I think that neocons should lose their jobs, and not get hired by anyone anymore as a result of this terrible fuckup. I like to see negative concequences applied under these circumstances. Our think tanks and pundits need new non neocon blood badly.

They're positions are such that Richard Nixon would be "too liberal" to be a part of their little klub. Cripes, they even make old-fashioned moderates like Robert Byrd look like Paul Wellstone by comparison.

Why do people in the party continue to listen to these clowns? Haven't the Democratic losses of the last twelve years been enough?

:eyes:

I wonder if they are thinking of rewriting this one. disgusting and I don't know if I want to be associated with them.

These people are moles, republican moles whose goal is to destroy the Democratic Party, to make sure the Democratic Party does not represent the progressive values or represent working people.

In some ways the DLCers are the real enemy. At least "conservatives" are relatively open about what they want to do.

Take back the party from them like they did from the progressive wing of the party about 20 years ago, I am an old democrat and proud of it. I dont think Kerry would do that but I would like a Kerry white house to support the progressive candiates in primaries.