Administration Swung & Missed At A Sneaky Curveball
Now German intelligence sources are repeating what's documented in the British Downing Street minutes and told by various midlevel U.S. whistleblowers: that the U.S. knowingly cited unreliable intelligence to bolster the case for war in Iraq.
How US Fell Under Curveball’s Spell
Take, Twist & Run
Why is this relevant to a blog on constructing a neoprogressive movement? Isn't it just more liberal doveishness?
I don't think so. The original Progressives were very concerned about the (un)wisdom of extending American power overseas -- about the desire of some powerful people to build an American empire. The Progressive movement 100 years ago fought to keep America's focus closer to home, and to ensure that when we did intervene in foreign affairs, it was constructive. They did not, in a word, favor adventurism.
The worldview that's driving this Administration's war in Iraq, like the rest of its foreign policy agenda, is one that wishes to establish America as aglobal imperial power -- primarily economically, but with the military if necessary. That view is not different than the policies the original Progressives fought against.
So if there is an anti-Bush-administration slant to this site, it's for good reason. Karl Rove, the man Bush called the "architect" of his presidency, has said that Mark Hanna, the political genius behind the McKinley presidency, is his role model. McKinley presided over the Gilded Age of robber barons and disproportionate wealth in what previously had been a largely egalitarian nation, and the original Progressives rose to combat his policies. So, yes, to the extent Rove is the neoHanna, and Bush is the neoMcKinley, the Neoprogressives will oppose their policies.
This view shouldn't drive true conservatives away. Neither McKinley nor Bush was truly conservative. The Neoprogressive values of democracy, flat-field capitalism, and a blend of optimism and caution aren't partisan, and the Neoprogressive Movement must have -- does have -- room for traditional conservative values, including the desire for a strong, and properly used, military. War hero, hunter, and Republican Teddy Roosevelt was one of the great original Progressives. He would have supported the troops, supported the war in Afghanistan, and opposed the war in Iraq. We need conservatives like him in our movement today.
Back to the news story: This new information is just one more stone on the growing pile of evidence that the U.S. was misled into this war. It's not deep wisdom to note that governments misleading nations into war are a bad thing. If the real reasons for war are good, they should be aired, debated, and substantially agreed upon before the war starts. If they're not good enough to share publicly, then they're not good enough to expend American lives advancing.
Demanding truth and accountability from our government, especially in matters of war and peace and American lives, is a Neoprogressive value that cuts across the usual political labels. It's not liberal, it's not conservative, it's simply American.
How US Fell Under Curveball’s Spell
Take, Twist & Run
Why is this relevant to a blog on constructing a neoprogressive movement? Isn't it just more liberal doveishness?
I don't think so. The original Progressives were very concerned about the (un)wisdom of extending American power overseas -- about the desire of some powerful people to build an American empire. The Progressive movement 100 years ago fought to keep America's focus closer to home, and to ensure that when we did intervene in foreign affairs, it was constructive. They did not, in a word, favor adventurism.
The worldview that's driving this Administration's war in Iraq, like the rest of its foreign policy agenda, is one that wishes to establish America as aglobal imperial power -- primarily economically, but with the military if necessary. That view is not different than the policies the original Progressives fought against.
So if there is an anti-Bush-administration slant to this site, it's for good reason. Karl Rove, the man Bush called the "architect" of his presidency, has said that Mark Hanna, the political genius behind the McKinley presidency, is his role model. McKinley presided over the Gilded Age of robber barons and disproportionate wealth in what previously had been a largely egalitarian nation, and the original Progressives rose to combat his policies. So, yes, to the extent Rove is the neoHanna, and Bush is the neoMcKinley, the Neoprogressives will oppose their policies.
This view shouldn't drive true conservatives away. Neither McKinley nor Bush was truly conservative. The Neoprogressive values of democracy, flat-field capitalism, and a blend of optimism and caution aren't partisan, and the Neoprogressive Movement must have -- does have -- room for traditional conservative values, including the desire for a strong, and properly used, military. War hero, hunter, and Republican Teddy Roosevelt was one of the great original Progressives. He would have supported the troops, supported the war in Afghanistan, and opposed the war in Iraq. We need conservatives like him in our movement today.
Back to the news story: This new information is just one more stone on the growing pile of evidence that the U.S. was misled into this war. It's not deep wisdom to note that governments misleading nations into war are a bad thing. If the real reasons for war are good, they should be aired, debated, and substantially agreed upon before the war starts. If they're not good enough to share publicly, then they're not good enough to expend American lives advancing.
Demanding truth and accountability from our government, especially in matters of war and peace and American lives, is a Neoprogressive value that cuts across the usual political labels. It's not liberal, it's not conservative, it's simply American.
posted by
Anonymous | 11/20/2005 12:14:00 PM
3 Comments:
Hey there,
I just caught your post on Curveball, and I must say I'm impressed. There is a lot going on in this country right now to swing the middle-state-voters away from the NeoCon takeover, but there's nothing coordinated. I mean, a few "anti-war" groups are picking up steam, and there's also "World Can't Wait"...but they're a little too keen to use Nazi and Hitler references when talking about the Bush Regime for my taste. That being said, we're impressed with the eloquence used on the NeoProgBlog to comment of these tough issues facing the nation. If you'd be interested in contributing articles to our organization, please let us know.
BlackWednesday.org
Also, to see what we posted on this topic, click here.
We're progressive, and a bit on the aggressive side. We're attempting to build a guild of top-shelf bloggers and activists under a single brand name, and in effect, creating an actual movement.
In any case, keep up the good work.
-Chuck
Chuck:
I appreciate your compliments, and I'd love to work with you -- hell, work with anyone constructive! -- on these issues. I like your site -- you're right, you're taking a more assertive stance than I am, but your ideas are completely on target and you're posting more up-to-date material than I am. (I considered trying to keep up with the news, but gave up -- these guys do too much bad stuff every day for me to possibly keep up, so I try to pick exemplary stories that can lead to discussion of a neoprogressive platform instead.)
I'm a newbie at blogging -- haven't even figured out how to add links to my site, and still "cut and paste" from models to insert html. What do you have in mind for cooperation -- cross linking somehow? Copying some of my articles on your site, with attribution? (I'm making this up as I go along...)
Anyway, thanks a lot for your comment. Made my day!
Thersides
Okay, so let me ask this: in reply to the article, where the Administration might show negligence, where does a conservative go if he doesn't relate to the current Republican party, does not share enough of the opinions of the Democratic party to become a Democrat but is liberal enough to ask the questions of himself neither party is willing to ask (or simply comveniently igores) of their stand on important issues?
Or can anyone provide a longer, more convoluted question? We could have contest. Thersites, what would the prize be for the longest, most convoluted question?
Post a Comment
<< Home