Skip to main content

View Diary: Noam Chomsky on U.S. policy towards Iran (223 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  I like how Chomsky points out (34+ / 0-)

      that an attack on Iran is frowned upon not just by liberals, or dirty fucking hippies, but, you know, by overwhelmingly the entire world.

      Including folks in the US.

      Only an inverterate hawk like Lieberman, or Clinton would vote for Kyl-Lieberman. That vote alone should be enough to disqualify her from the Democratic primary. But it's not just that vote, it's her insane bellocosity vis a vis Iran and Iraq and anywhere else we might have an "interest".

      As Justin Raimondo quite rightly points out, one of the main impediments to peace with Iran and getting out of Iraq, is our own fucking leadership in the Democratic party--specifically the DLC.

      Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings. A second post-Iraq war letter by PNAC on March 28 called for broader international support for reconstruction, including the involvement of NATO, and brought together the same Democrats with the prominent addition of another Brookings foreign policy scholar, Michael O'Hanlon.

      And here's our own ignorant Moose, a firm DLC partisan from the so called Progressive Policy Institute:

      PPI President Will Marshall said that the progressive internationalism strategy draws "a sharp distinction between this mainstream Democratic strategy for national security and the far left's vision of America's role in the world. In this document we take issue with those who begrudge the kind of defense spending that we think is necessary to meet our needs, both at home and abroad; with folks who seem to reflexively oppose the use of force; and who seem incapable of taking America's side in international disputes."

      "We also argue," said Marshall, "that a strong international leadership should not be equated with a kind of toothless multilateralism that puts the quest for consensus above the hard and risky business of grappling with chaos, of dealing with real conflicts, and confronting real enemies and aggressors. And we warn against an anti-globalization agenda that not only hurts our economy but that condemns developing countries in the world to poverty. So, however troubling the Bush record is, we think that the pacifist and protectionist left offers no viable alternative."

      That's the pro-war, militaristic anti-progressive attitude, indeed, a rancorously anti-progressive venom that Clinton supporters are rewarding with their vote.

      Peace in our time is possible, but not with the DLC or their handmaiden, Hillary Clinton.

      If you want to guarantee a Republican President, vote for Hillary in the primaries. She's the single strongest unifying force the Republican party has.

      by DelicateMonster on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:28:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site